The Senedd met in the Chamber and by video-conference at 13:30 with the Llywydd (Elin Jones) in the Chair.

1. Questions to the First Minister

Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon's Plenary meeting. The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Vikki Howells.

Health Services in Cynon Valley

Vikki Howells AC: 1. How is the Welsh Government working to improve the provision of health services for the people of Cynon Valley? OQ59213

Mark Drakeford AC: Llywydd, I thank the Member for that question. A series of national programmes assist the health board in providing improved access to its services. These programmes offer the most up-to-date clinical advice and access to latest best practice so that standards can be improved in all parts of Wales, including the Cynon valley.

Vikki Howells AC: Thank you for your answer, First Minister, and I was really pleased to hear the announcement last month about the new diagnostics and treatment centre for south-east Wales, to be based in Rhondda Cynon Taf. This could not just reduce, but actually eliminate, backlogs in accessing treatment and substantially reduce waiting times, moving forward, for orthopedic surgeries in particular, for people in Cynon valley and neighbouring areas.Can you provide any information on timescales for delivery of this key project and, in addition, outline what help Welsh Government will be providing to health boards to get this new centre up and running?

Mark Drakeford AC: Well, Llywydd, I thank Vikki Howells for that question, and for drawing attention to that very important development in the RCT area. And, Llywydd, it's a genuine example, I think, of the social partnership approach in Wales in action. The three buildings that are to be used were first identified by the local authority. They drew them to the attention of the health board. The health board had negotiations with the current private sector occupant of the buildings. The health board then involved itself in discussions with the wider south-east Wales health community, and the financial help to acquire the buildings was provided through the Welsh Government. So, there you have local government, the health service, the private sector and the Welsh Government all collectively involved in bringing about a development that, as Vikki Howells said, will lead to significant new capacity for residents in this part of Wales.
In terms of timescales, it's important to remember that the building is still occupied by its current owner, but there will be a period over the next 12 months in which they bring their use of the building to an end, and diagnostic capacity, which will be the first phase of the new development, will be worked up by the health board, its partners, including the Welsh Government, and that will be the first phase in the next calendar year. And then, once that is developed, there will be physical space at the buildings to have dedicated elective capacity, with a particular focus on orthopaedic care, which will, as Vikki Howells said, Llywydd, make an important difference to patients in that part of Wales, in accelerating their access to treatment. And the Welsh Government will be there not just with the financial help we've offered so far, but, as I said in my original answer, by making sure that the health board has access to those national programmes, those national clinical leads, which will help to make sure that the most advantage can be derived from this new development.

Joel James MS: First Minister, according to Stats Wales, in December 2022, Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board, which covers the Cynon valley, along with Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil and the rest of Rhondda Cynon Taf, had a staggering 13,732 patients waiting more than 14 weeks for diagnostic and therapy services, out of a population of 450,000. This represents 36 per cent of the total amount of people waiting more than 14 weeks in Wales. Cwm Taf health board also had 31,992 patients waiting over eight weeks, which represented 18 per cent of the Welsh total, which is, sadly, further evidence of the postcode lottery that exists in Wales with the health service.To put these figures into perspective, for the same month, the whole of London, which has a population of over nine million people, had a similar amount of 32,953 people waiting more than six weeks. Recent Office for National Statistics data shows that, out of the 331 areas in the United Kingdom, Merthyr Tydfil is officially the sickest place, with almost 10 per cent of the population in very bad health, whilst RCT is sixth and Bridgend is thirteenth. As you know, recent news shows that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has now been put back into special measures, and the British Dental Association has warned that NHS dentistry in Wales could soon disappear, with the chairman of the BDA's Welsh general committee stating that Welsh NHS dentistry in its current state is unlikely to exist in a year or two's time. With this in mind, First Minister, what steps has the Welsh Government taken to improve on these appalling statistics? Thank you.

Mark Drakeford AC: Well, it's being so cheerful that keeps him going, Llywydd—it's certainly not the accuracy of his grasp of the facts. In some ways, the Member managed to answer his own question, eventually, by pointing to the fact that the reason why there are percentages of that sort waiting in Cwm Taf is because of the nature of the population it serves. It's not a postcode lottery at all; it's as the Member eventually managed to say—it is because Cwm Taf Morgannwg serves one of the oldest and sickest populations that we see anywhere in Wales. And the demand for health services reflects the needs of that local population. It's all the better news, therefore, that the development that Vikki Howells pointed to will accelerate access not simply to diagnostic services, but to planned operations for people in that part of Wales.

Prudent Healthcare

Jenny Rathbone AC: 2. What progress has the Welsh Government made on embedding prudent healthcare into every aspect of health and well-being in Cardiff Central? OQ59234

Mark Drakeford AC: I thank Jenny Rathbone for that question. Llywydd, value-based healthcare continues to take forward the prudent healthcare principles of ill-health prevention, joint partnership with patients on the journey to improvement, and diversification of the workforce so that every practitioner operates at the top of their clinical licence.

Jenny Rathbone AC: First Minister, I'm sure you will want to celebrate the work of Cardiff and Vale health board, mindful of the well-being of their staff, and inviting them to take part in courses on how to grow vegetables on the Llandough hospital site, obviously funded by the Cardiff and Vale health board charity—something, I'm sure, close to both our hearts. But I also want to highlight their recent work on tackling the enduring epidemic of mental illness. Referrals to secondary care remain almost as high as they were during the pandemic. So, they've been training barbers to recognise signs of mental distress amongst their customers, and they're training people with lived experience of enduring mental health problems as tutors, to work alongside professional clinical tutors, involving individual patients and families and friends in a whole-system recovery, through something called the recovery college. How can this really creative response to the shortage of applicants to fill staff vacancies be deepened across Government, to help shrink the disparity in the numbers of years lived well between different socioeconomic groups, so harshly exposed by COVID? In Cardiff, it's 12 years.

Mark Drakeford AC: Llywydd, I thank Jenny Rathbone for that. I certainly share her enthusiasm for the work of Cardiff and Vale health board, at their Llandough site, in using the ground that they have available there for well-being initiatives. The fruit that is being grown in part of the western edge of that site offers patients as well as people who work for the health board an opportunity to be outside, in the fresh air, and with access to the things that we know improve individuals' sense of well-being.
As far as the mental health impact of the pandemic is concerned, it continues to be seen in all parts of Wales. The Welsh Government's new investment in mental health is often very much concentrated in that prudent healthcare part of the spectrum: investment in tier 0 and tier 1 services, and the 111 'press 2' service that's available 24 hours every day in the Cardiff and Vale health board area, and with a publicity campaign, Llywydd, which will take place throughout this month, to increase patients' awareness and use of that very valuable service. I'm very struck by what the Member said, Llywydd, about the way in which it is possible to harness the efforts of people who aren't in the health service at all to be part of the work of identifying and attending to patients needs as early as possible when those needs arise. I do recall, some years ago now, when I was health Minister, visiting Pen-y-groes, a Welsh-speaking area in the Ammanford coalfield, to see a dementia service and being told by the GPs who ran it that their most important source of referrals were hairdressers on the main street of the village, because those hairdressers knew their clientele—they could spot the person who wasn't quite managing as well as they used to, with the money, with the organisation, and they would make an early referral into the dementia service, so that people could get that preventative intervention that is possible when you manage to identify people early on that journey. The barbers in Cardiff, the postal workers in Cardiff, who we know have those day in, day out interactions on the doorstep, all these are people who we can make helpful to the health service in that prudent healthcare way.

Questions Without Notice from the Party Leaders

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Andrew RT Davies AC: Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, last week, my colleague Janet Finch-Saunders, along with other MSs, hosted a meeting about the cladding situation here in Wales, and the Welsh Cladiators, who have been pioneering the lobbying work and the projection of the plight of many home owners here in Wales who are caught up in this, really should be commended by all Members in this Chamber. One of the asks among many was why isn't the Welsh Government coming forward and adopting the legislation that has been put down in England, to take sections 116 and 125, to give rights to leaseholders so that they themselves can exercise those rights in holding the developers to account. I've heard Mike Hedges, one of your backbenchers, speak in favour of this in the Chamber when speaking to the leader of the house. There's cross-party support for this. We had a debate prior to Christmas. Will the Government reconsider its view, in light of the ongoing crisis that many home owners here in Wales face?

Mark Drakeford AC: Well, Llywydd, first of all, I join with the leader of the opposition in congratulating those people who continue to campaign on this issue to make sure that the Welsh Government is always aware of developments that they are in touch with and that their views are conveyed to us. And I know that last week's meeting was an opportunity for that to happen, and the Minister will be following that up in her forthcoming meeting with the strategic safety stakeholder group, where these matters can be further debated, and the Minister keeps all those arguments about sections 118 to section 125 under review.
The position, though, is that those regulations—those sections—were specifically written for the building safety regime in England. It is not as simple as simply picking them up and dropping them into the very different Welsh context. And there are some disadvantages for leaseholders who find themselves within that regime, because here in Wales our intention is that leaseholders should not be required to pay for the remedial action that is required to their buildings, whereas those sections expose leaseholders to bills up to £10,000, and we don't intend to do that in Wales. So, while we will continue to keep the position under close review, we're not convinced that a simple drag-and-drop of those sections into the Welsh context would deliver what the campaigners say it would deliver, and we're not convinced that it could not actually act to their detriment.

Andrew RT Davies AC: First Minister, a part of Welsh law that would accommodate those sections, in the rights of leaseholders and home owners, surely is something that must be welcomed, to give rights to those leaseholders and home owners in their actions against the house builders, in this case multinational house builders who have deep pockets indeed? And now, six years after Grenfell, many leaseholders and home owners still find themselves in this vortex that is opening up and with no end. If the Welsh Government are not prepared to enact sections 116 to 125, then the other route that the Minister has taken on board is negotiating with the house builders and the compact agreement that we were told last autumn has been agreed between certain developers, and then the obligations that those developers will bring forward. Can you confirm today how many developers have agreed that compact agreement with the Welsh Government, and, importantly, how many of those developers have brought forward their remedial works for consideration by the Welsh Government? Because it's my understanding that, in paragraph 6 of that compact, they had one month from agreeing the compact to come forward with their proposals. I would hope that you would be able to tell me how many developers have submitted those plans.

Mark Drakeford AC: I can certainly tell the Member that 11 developers have signed up to the compact. We continue to work with the sector to put the force of law beneath the compact as well. I don't have in front of me the answer to the number of developers who have taken the next step to which the Member referred, but I'm very happy to write to him and make sure that he has that information.

Andrew RT Davies AC: It is vital that the developers step up to the plate and do the work that is expected and commanded of them to make sure that the leaseholders and the householders aren't put in a disadvantaged position through no fault of their own. In Westminster, Michael Gove has been very forthright in saying that if the developers do not come forward with the proposals and start the remediation work and sign up to the Government agreement, they will be barred from operating in England. That is a very powerful stick to bring those developers to the table. Will you take such action here in Wales to make sure that the developers do respond and don't have this continual round-table discussion that leaves the leaseholders and home owners on the sidelines, unable to move forward with their lives?

Mark Drakeford AC: I fully agree. It's been the position of the Welsh Government throughout that those who are responsible for the faults in the construction of those buildings should take responsibility for remediation. I want to try and be as fair as I can to that sector by saying that the considerable bulk of developers who are responsible in Wales have come forward and given that commitment, and therefore we should work with them to make sure that they deliver exactly what they have committed to do.
Llywydd, to return to the leader of the opposition's first question, whereas sections 116 to 125 require leaseholders to instigate legal action against a developer who they consider is not remediating fire safety defects, in Wales it will be the Welsh Government who will take that action on behalf of the leaseholders so that they don't end up having to foot the bill for doing so. Where developers clearly fail to play their part, then absolutely we will take action against them, and I would not expect any developer who fails directly to deliver on those responsibilities to go on working here in Wales.

Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price.

Adam Price AC: Diolch, Llywydd. The UK Government has just raised rail fares by 5.9 per cent—the highest increase for a decade. Coming, as it does, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, it's hard to disagree with Labour's shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Louise Haigh, who said:
'This savage fare hike will be a sick joke for millions reliant on crumbling services. People up and down this country are paying the price for thirteen years of Tory failure.'
Why did you agree to increase rail fares in Wales by the same amount?

Mark Drakeford AC: The normal practice, as the Member will know, will be for rail fares to be increased in line with inflation; that would have meant a 12.3 per cent increase in rail fares here in Wales. With a great deal of discussion and action by the Minister, working alongside Transport for Wales, we have been able to cap that increase at less than half of inflation. I wish we didn't have to increase rail fares by 5.9 per cent, because it does, of course, have an impact on the passenger, but the farebox, the money the passengers pay, is an integral part of the way in which we pay for a rail service, and if passengers are not to pay, then taxpayers do have to pay. In the end, the best bargain we could come to in Wales, within the resources that we have available to us, was to increase the contribution that the taxpayer will have to pay in order to peg the increase in rail fares at less than half what it would've been had the normal practice been followed.

Adam Price AC: You simply followed the 5.9 per cent decision that was made in Westminster. What's the point of this place if we're simply a cut-and-paste Parliament that passively implements Tory austerity? You could've done what the Scottish Government did, which is to reduce peak fares and pay for it through a progressive use of your income tax powers. At the same time as you're increasing rail fares, you're slashing subsidy for the bus industry. You're effectively pushing large parts of the bus industry over the edge of a cliff at the end of June. Let's think about what that means in terms of your overall goal of getting people out of cars into public transport. It makes it harder, doesn't it? Will you at least commit today, First Minister, that if there is extra money for Wales at the UK Government budget, public transport in general and saving bus services in particular will be one of the top priorities in terms of any additional money?

Mark Drakeford AC: Were there to be any money in the spring statement, at the very top of this Government's list will be pay demands in the public services and to make sure that we can do the very best for those people who work within them. But public transport is a very important priority for this Government, and we completely understand the importance of bus services in all parts of Wales. I was able to meet yesterday with the Permanent Secretary, with the Minister and the Deputy Minister for Climate Change and others, to talk about the actions that we will be able to take alongside the industry beyond the current three-month extension of emergency funding to the end of June this year. I'm confident that we will be able to go on finding further money. We invest £100 million in supporting the bus service in any case. The additional money is emergency funding; it cannot go on for ever. We have to be able to find a way of agreeing with the industry a sustainable solution in the context that passenger numbers using buses have not recovered to where they were before the pandemic. But I am confident, from the discussions that we've had yesterday, that we will find further funding beyond the £12 million that we've committed to sustain emergency funding to the first quarter of this year, and that we will do it alongside the industry to come to a sustainable final position.

Adam Price AC: There are reports of plans to increase the level of water currently exported from Wales. Welsh water companies are already the biggest exporters in the UK by a long way, and that water is currently traded at a price significantly lower than the price paid by Welsh Water customers, which is amongst the highest in the UK. Has the Welsh Government been involved in discussions relating to these plans, and does it agree with us that three tests need to be met in relation to any proposal to expand the export of water from Wales: that they do not compromise the security of water supply within Wales now or in the future; that there are no adverse effects on our environment and our communities; and that any proposal must generate economic benefits for the people of Wales that reflect the true value of this very precious resource?

Mark Drakeford AC: The Minister met with the water company concerned yesterday. There is no specific proposal on the table at the moment. Were such a proposal to come forward, then it will have to satisfy the environment Act requirement here in Wales. Decisions will need to be submitted to Welsh Ministers for their involvement and, of course, in doing so, we will make sure that the interests of Welsh residents and Welsh taxpayers are properly safeguarded.

Ports

Joyce Watson AC: 3. What discussions has the Welsh Government had with the UK Government regarding the competitiveness of Welsh ports? OQ59232

Mark Drakeford AC: We work with the UK Government on a range of port-related issues, including floating offshore wind, the free-ports programme and border control posts. In the coming weeks we will pay particular attention to the impact of the Windsor framework on the competitiveness of Welsh ports.

Joyce Watson AC: I welcome the progress on Northern Ireland, or the Windsor protocol, but I share your concerns that the deal agreed last week could have a negative impact on Welsh ports, and that includes Fishguard and Pembroke. Brexit has done a good job in boosting French ports at the expense of UK ports. It's far easier now, of course, to bypass Welsh ports, and we can't afford any further decline. The Prime Minister's excitement about Northern Ireland's privileged access to the UK and EU markets is particularly galling, given that he campaigned for the rest of Britain to give it up. Do you agree with me that the least that he can do is help Welsh ports to compete? What should that support look like, instead of the hypocrisy that we're currently seeing?

Mark Drakeford AC: I thank Joyce Watson for that, Llywydd. I, too, welcome any progress made on resolving the outstanding issues on the Northern Ireland protocol. During the time that there has been no Executive in Northern Ireland, I have kept in contact with all the main party leaders. During the autumn, I met with Michelle O'Neill as leader of Sinn Féin, I spoke with Jeffrey Donaldson as the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, and I held meetings with Doug Beattie, the Ulster Unionist Party leader, and with the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour Party. I did that in order to convey to them the interest that the Welsh Government has in making sure that there is a functioning Executive there in Northern Ireland able to be in the room when we conduct discussions between the four nations of the United Kingdom.
In the meantime, Joyce Watson is absolutely right, Llywydd, that the terms of the withdrawal agreement from the European Union handed Welsh ports a clear competitive disadvantage. Irish businesses bypass the land bridge in favour of direct links to EU ports in France and Spain. Prior to leaving the European Union, Rosslare had, as I remember, four major routes, and they were between the island of Ireland and Welsh ports. Now, there are 40 routes out of Rosslare and they're going directly to the European Union, to the single market, despite the fact that it takes longer to do so and it's more expensive to do so. But they're doing so because of the barriers to trade that they now face when they route goods through Welsh ports and on to the European Union through Dover.
On the Prime Minister's excitement at having created a position for Northern Ireland where they have access both to the UK single market and the EU single market, I was tempted to write to him asking him if he could find the same advantages for Wales as well, because it is absolutely an irony that he should celebrate something that he himself worked so hard to deny to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Joyce Watson asks what could be done by the UK Government. There are simple things that they could do, Llywydd, that would enhance the prospects of barrier-free trade between Welsh ports and our most important and nearest neighbour. They could, for example, negotiate a veterinary agreement with the EU. That would remove entirely the need for sanitary and phytosanitary checks at Welsh ports. We have traded successfully with goods coming from the Republic of Ireland through Wales for 50 years without the need for such checks to be in place. A sensible UK Government would come to a veterinary agreement and we'd be back to where we were before, to quote yesterday's Financial Times, the folly of Brexit was imposed upon us.

Samuel Kurtz MS: First Minister, I have many happy memories from working aboard the Stena Europe and the Lynx sailing from Fishguard to Rosslare in the early 2010s when I was still a student. Much of the chatter and the talk below deck and in the galley then was that the consolidation of the two ports in Pembrokeshire was to be forthcoming in that time. Since then, in the last month, we've heard Irish Ferries being very tight-lipped around their future, causing great concern to constituents of mine and crew onboard the ferry in terms of their future of sailing from Pembroke Dock to Rosslare. Are the Welsh Government aware of any plans to consolidate the two ferry services out of one port so that there is only one set of sailings from Pembrokeshire to Rosslare? Diolch.

Mark Drakeford AC: Well, Llywydd, the preferred outcome of the Welsh Government is that we sustain the highest level of service between Welsh ports, both Fishguard and Pembroke Dock, and that is what we have been focused on in the difficult days of the last few years. It is uncertainty that drives companies to have the sort of discussions that Sam Kurtz mentions. Hopefully, a Northern Ireland protocol deal will provide greater certainty for companies operating across the Irish sea, and what would give them not just greater certainty, but would improve the chances of being able to sustain the current level of service, is if we could, as I suggested in my answer to Joyce Watson, return to conditions where barrier-free trade was as close as possible to the circumstances we enjoyed only a few years ago.

Rhun ap Iorwerth AC: There's no doubt at all that Brexit has been very damaging to the port of Holyhead. One strong argument for giving a free port designation to Holyhead is that that designation has already been given to Liverpool, where it's possible to sail directly to Northern Ireland, and the fear is that that designation gives an unfair advantage to Liverpool over Holyhead.
But in looking to the longer term, one other threat to Holyhead is the state of the barrage. Now, the Welsh Government has been eager to show support in investing in maintaining that, and Stena has demonstrated that they're also willing to invest, but there's a third party—the UK Government. So, can the First Minister first of all confirm ongoing support from the Welsh Government to make that investment, and give us an update on the negotiations going on between the Government and the UK Government to ensure that this investment can happen to give that prosperous long-term future to the port in Holyhead?

Mark Drakeford AC: I thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for that question. I do agree that one of the things that we are going to keep a watching brief on over the weeks to come is to see whether, in the new agreement, there is a greater emphasis on companies going directly from the UK to Northern Ireland. The details are important and we don't have them yet, but we are going to be determined to pursue that point.
Regarding the breakwater in Holyhead, we are still part of the discussions that are ongoing. We're working with Stena and we as a Government—as we've said already—are willing to be part of the group that's coming together to pay for those costs. It's important to have the UK Government around the table as well; I am rather concerned if they do withdraw from that process. We've seen over the last week what's happened with the Holyhead hydrogen hub, where they haven't come to the table with the funding that they had already announced. And we've seen a couple of things that raised concerns with us regarding the role that they are willing to play with that breakwater as well. But we're still there, and Stena are still there, recognising the importance of doing that work for the future of Holyhead.

Jane Dodds AS: Good afternoon, First Minister. I concur with the comments made by my colleague Joyce Watson and with yourself as well in terms of Brexit and its damage to the competitiveness of our Welsh ports. I just find it surprising that our colleagues in the Conservative Party, in their condemnation of the roads review, say that Wales is closed to business. Well, actually, you've closed Wales to business through taking us out of the EU. Our Welsh ports have been damaged significantly by trade and traffic, and for that I think you should at least own up, if not be ashamed of yourselves.
But I do want to talk about another aspect, if I may, of our Welsh ports, and that is our access to wind energy. We know that there are specific developments—for example, in my region in Pembrokeshire, where we see Blue Gem Wind energy actually developing our access to that wind energy. We reckon that there will be about 10,000 jobs developed. One of the big issues, though, is accessing permits for that development, and I just wonder whether you could comment on that, please, First Minister. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Mark Drakeford AC: I thank Jane Dodds for that supplementary question.

Mark Drakeford AC: Of course, she's absolutely right that it is central to the future not simply of the ports themselves but of the Welsh economy that we have that investment in floating offshore wind. A huge amount of effort is going into creating that future. I'm very pleased to be able to say that the consents that are needed for the Erebus project, the first genuine commercial demonstration of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea—that Natural Resources Wales has provided its consents so that that scheme can go ahead, and I think this week, the Minister was able to provide the consents that Welsh Ministers need to provide under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.
So, the consents that are needed to allow that really important project to go ahead are now there. Its importance lies in its demonstration of our capacity in Wales to take schemes from the drawing board and actually into commercial-scale operation. I think this week has been a very good week for Blue Gem, and we will continue to look very positively at the development of that project for everything that it will demonstrate about our commitment to renewable energy and to the ports that will be at the backbone of that development.

An Economic Strategy for the Heads of the Valleys

Alun Davies AC: 4. Will the First Minister provide an update on the Welsh Government's progress on an economic strategy for the Heads of the Valleys? OQ59233

Mark Drakeford AC: Llywydd, we continue to work with the local authorities across the northern south Wales Valleys and the Cardiff capital region to increase the economic prosperity of the region.

Alun Davies AC: Thank you. First Minister, your own personal commitment to the communities in the Heads of the Valleys has always shone through, both as First Minister and prior to that as well. You will remember the visit that you paid to Blaenau Gwent during the last election campaign, where we both stood on the bridge over the A465 dualling project, and where you spoke about your hopes for the future of that project and what prosperity it would help to bring to Blaenau Gwent.
I'm very proud of the investment that we're making in the A465. It's the biggest single investment that the Welsh Government has ever made in an economic development project—nearly £2 billion by the time it's complete. I well remember the work of our good friend, Carl Sargeant, in ensuring that that project went ahead.
First Minister, Blaenau Gwent has already seen the positive impact of this investment. The local authority has already seen an increase in the number of enquiries from businesses wanting to locate in Blaenau Gwent and wanting to develop their businesses in the borough. I'm very pleased that the economy Minister, Vaughan Gething, has agreed to come to Blaenau Gwent to talk about how we can ensure that we maximise the value of this investment. So, First Minister, will you ensure that the whole of the Government works together to ensure that this road to prosperity really is a road to prosperity, not just for Blaenau Gwent but for the whole of the Heads of the Valleys region?

Mark Drakeford AC: Well, Llywydd, I thank Alun Davies for that. I've heard him on a series of occasions on the floor of the Senedd make the case that the new Heads of the Valleys road must be more than a bypass, as I've heard him say; it needs to be something that generates prosperity across its length. He's right to say that I've been lucky enough to be able to take an interest in the development throughout the time that I've been involved in Welsh Government. During the time that I was finance Minister, we devised the mutual investment model, which, of course, is now the vehicle through which we're able to take the final sections—sections 5 and 6—of the road to completion.
But, our ambition is exactly the ambition that Alun Davies spoke about, Llywydd. It is to make sure that we bring together, across its length, the different local authorities and the other players who have a part to contribute to make sure that the road is an engine for economic prosperity in that part of Wales. I do vividly remember that visit to Blaenau Gwent, because of the two things that are in my mind as a result of it. First of all is the astonishing feat of engineering that that road represents in so many parts of its length. And secondly, the care that has gone into it during its construction to make sure that environmental aspects of that road have been so carefully attended to. The Member, Llywydd, took me to see some of the additional work that has been done to make sure that the impact on wildlife in that part of Wales has been carefully planned into the way in which that road has been constructed. With that level of care and with that level of investment, I am sure that it will continue to do what the Member said, and that is to bring new economic opportunities to parts of Wales where those opportunities have not always been in sufficient supply.

Natasha Asghar AS: First Minister, there is no doubt that all of us here want to see Wales thrive with a strong economy, an abundance of highly skilled jobs and great opportunities for all. Well, the UK Government's levelling-up fund is just one of the many projects that are actually going to help us achieve that. In the latest round of funding, my region of south-east Wales was awarded nearly £40 million, £9 million of that is being spent directly in Blaenau Gwent with the creation of a new world-leading engineering campus. This campus will help create the next generation of skilled engineers and, hopefully, bring more prosperity to the area. First Minister, will you join me in welcoming this UK Government funding for Blaenau Gwent, which will help create highly skilled jobs and ensure long-term economic growth for the area, which has been needed for so long? Thank you.

Mark Drakeford AC: I think there are two or three points to make. First of all, the investment in the college in Blaenau Gwent would not have been possible had it not already been for the investment that the Welsh Government had put into that development and, indeed, the European Union investment that has gone into it. The UK Government are the third and final partner to make a contribution, and their contribution would not have been possible without everything that had gone before it.
We know that the levelling-up fund leaves Wales badly shortchanged from what we would have had under any other circumstances. Llywydd, let me make a slightly different point, which is, actually, the way the levelling-up fund has been administered has made it more difficult to bring local authorities together to provide that focus on the economic opportunities that the Heads of the Valleys road provides, because the way the levelling-up fund works is local authorities are invited to compete with one another. They have to come up with schemes within their own boundaries, and they have to compete with their neighbours for funding. The efforts that the economy Minister here has made have been to bring those people together around a single table. They have been diverted and distracted into pursuing what are, in the end, relatively small sums of money and in a way that actually undermines their ability to deliver those collaborative and co-operative ways of working that I believe have a much greater long-term chance of underpinning that local economy.

Education in South Wales West

Tom Giffard AS: 5. How is the Welsh Government ensuring the highest possible quality of school education in South Wales West? OQ59205

Mark Drakeford AC: I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. Democratically elected local authorities are primarily responsible for ensuring the quality of school education in their localities. The Welsh Government supports those efforts through, for example, the implementation of the new Curriculum for Wales.

Tom Giffard AS: Thank you. First Minister, the last Programme for International Student Assessment results in 2018 showed Wales at the bottom of UK rankings for the fifth occasion running. We'll see what happens when the 2022 results come out later this year, but since then, we've only seen significant disruption to children's education in Wales over the last three years because of both the COVID-19 pandemic and now teacher strikes as well.
On top of this disruption, Labour-run Bridgend County Borough Council is proposing to cut school funding by 2 per cent in 2023-24. By comparison, neighbouring Neath Port Talbot council is proposing to increase like-for-like school funding by 8 per cent. Now, those two councils are important, because they have a similar population, similar levels of reserves, and similar council tax increases proposed for the next year. The only difference is the one that's cutting it is run by the Labour Party. First Minister, we know that Bridgend County Borough Council's decision will have a detrimental impact on education in Bridgend for years to come, so what's your Government doing to ensure that pupils across Wales receive a quality education, wherever they live, even if they live in areas with short-sighted councils?

Mark Drakeford AC: Llywydd, first of all, just to remind colleagues that Wales was the only part of the United Kingdom to see an improvement in all three PISA dimensions when those figures were last published. I know that Conservative Members think it's their job to run Wales down, but, actually, the PISA results were at the opposite end of that spectrum. If I was the Member, I wouldn't have necessarily ventured down that pathwith the rest of his question, because the information I have is that, in the information that local authorities are required to notify to Welsh Ministers and their governing bodies as a result of the School Funding (Wales) Regulations 2010, for Bridgend, the proposed school budget shows an increase of 4 per cent. I wouldn't, if I was the Member, enter for the mathematics element of the next PISA round.

Road Connectivity in Mid Wales

Russell George AC: 6. What assessment has the First Minister made of the importance of road connectivity to the economy in mid Wales? OQ59208

Mark Drakeford AC: I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. That assessment is set out in 'Llwybr Newydd', the Welsh transport strategy. It confirms the importance of road connectivity for sustainable social and economic purposes, assessed against the varying needs of different parts of Wales.

Russell George AC: Thank you for your answer, First Minister. I was pleased that the road improvement scheme at Moat Lane, Caersws was not scrapped as part of the recent roads review. This scheme is absolutely crucial to take place, not only for congestion, but there are a number of safety concerns at that point, and, sadly, a number of fatalities over a number of years. I know, First Minister, you'll be aware of this stretch, because you recently travelled to Llandinam, just a few miles up the trunk road.
Also connected to this particular scheme, and before the roads review was commenced, there were plans for a stand-alone footbridge over Caersws as well, and this scheme was linked to the road improvement scheme—rightly so; it made complete sense for that to be the case. But there are certainly safety concerns at this point as well, because pedestrians have to walk over this stretch of trunk road, where there is no capacity for a footbridge. So, I wonder, First Minister, if you can set out a timetable and any other further information in regard to this road improvement scheme, and also the stand-alone proposed footbridge, along with the wider active travel scheme in Caersws as well.

Mark Drakeford AC: I thank Russell George for that, Llywydd, and I know that he’s been a consistent advocate of the Caersws scheme. I saw that he had raised it with the Minister on the floor of the Senedd back on 15 February, and he’s right to say that the scheme is to go ahead, following the roads review, for some of the reasons, including the safety reasons, that the Member has set out this afternoon. What will happen now is that the scheme will continue to develop, that some of the more recent recommendations that include additional safety and active travel elements will need to be planned into the project, and I’m afraid, like all schemes, it inevitably has to meet the same tests as any other road scheme, and then of affordability. But the case for the scheme has been consistently and well made by the Member, and the Minister responsible will have heard the points that he’s made this afternoon.

Phosphate Regulations

Mabon ap Gwynfor AS: 7. Will the First Minister provide an update on the impact of phosphate regulations on Dwyfor Meirionnydd? OQ59235

Mark Drakeford AC: I thank the Member for the question. There are three rivers that are special areas of conservation within the Dwyfor Meirionnydd constituency. The Glaslyn and Gwyrfai are meeting the phosphate standard, whilst the River Dee is failing. I will chair a second phosphate summit tomorrow, in order to accelerate the actions necessary to improve the water quality in our rivers that are special areas of conservation.

Mabon ap Gwynfor AS: I thank the First Minister for that response. The impact of the phosphate regulations is having a significant impact on people across Wales. You will be aware of the impact of the regulations on housing developers, particularly social housing, with some 700 social homes being held up because of these regulations.
But I want to look specifically at the development of the Llyn Tegid railway in Bala, which is being held up because of the Dee. Now they have succeeded in collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds internationally to bring the rail line into town, which will be a significant economic boost for the area. They’ve been given planning consent and have done the preparatory work for the new station. Indeed, Natural Resources Wales themselves have done a great deal of the preparatory workto allow the railway to come into the town. But the phosphate regulations mean that this development cannot proceed, despite the fact that they aren't going to build additional toilets in addition to what's publicly available already. There is a very real risk that this plan could fail. What advice would you, therefore, give to the Llyn Tegid railway in light of this?

Mark Drakeford AC: Well, Llywydd, the Minister responsible for these matters is aware of the points raised by the Member, because she had an opportunity to visit the railway back in the summer. The substantive point is this: we can't press ahead and agree to developments where phosphate hasn't been taken into account in the plan in a way that doesn't increase the problems that we already have. The impact of phosphate on rivers in Wales is a situation where we can't agree to undertake things that don't contribute to a future where that problem is mitigated. That's why we have this summit again tomorrow, to get everybody around the table—the developers, the regulators, the water companies, the communities and the farmers as well. And I'm looking forward tomorrow to hearing about the role that they can all play. I'm looking forward to hearing about how all sectors intend to undertake their responsibilities, and, when we can collaborate in that fashion, we can find a way for the development that has been outlined by the Member to be undertaken. Without having the contribution from all sectors, that can't happen.

Child Poverty

Heledd Fychan AS: 8. What steps is the Welsh Government taking to reduce child poverty in South Wales Central? OQ59231

Mark Drakeford AC: I thank Heledd Fychan. Llywydd, we are working with our partners, including local authorities, the third sector and those with lived experience to support vulnerable households. Direct help with the cost of the school day, universal free school meals in primary schools and measures to tackle holiday hunger are amongst the practical steps being taken across Wales.

Heledd Fychan AS: Thank you, First Minister, unfortunately, however, as we all know, levels of child poverty in Wales are getting worse, and it's clear from visits throughout my region, together with my casework, that the situation is critical for many families. Teachers tell me consistently that they're increasingly having to spend time supporting pupils and their families in terms of responding to the cost-of-living crisis, providing clothes for learners, setting up foodbanks or food pantries in schools, and also raising money so that learners have essentials in their homes, such as a fridge. They're also increasingly having to support learners who suffer from poor mental health because there are problems in terms of accessing services such as CAMHS. They are not complaining about doing that as teachers; they see it as an important part of supporting learners to reach their full potential. But they are complaining that their budgets are under pressure, that their workloads are increasing, that the salaries of classroom assistants are particularly low, meaning that some have to rely on foodbanks, and that the role that teachers and classroom assistants play in terms of responding to the increase in child poverty is not being recognised. Therefore, could I ask how the Welsh Government wants to work with our schools to reduce child poverty and to ensure that they have the resources to play their role in ensuring the best for our children and young people?

Mark Drakeford AC: Well, Llywydd, of course I acknowledge the difficult context that Heledd Fychan has set out and, unfortunately, that will only get worse over the next month. At the beginning of April, the cost of energy will increase and there will be freezes in the area of income tax, which will have an impact on household income across Wales, and many people will face increased mortgage costs too. So, the impact in the classroom is going to be very great indeed. As I explained, we are doing a number of things under the co-operation agreement in order to assist familiesand to assist in classrooms too, and the Minister for education has been in discussion with the education unions over recent weeks to discuss with them what we can do together to help people working with children—both teachers and others—in order to provide more time to do the work that they're there to do, by providing more general assistance to them. So, in collaboration with the unions, and through the programme that we have agreed with Plaid Cymru, practical steps are being taken to assist people in a context that is very difficult for families and those working in the sector too.

Thank you, First Minister.

2. Business Statement and Announcement

The next item will be the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Trefnydd to make that statement—Lesley Griffiths.

Lesley Griffiths AC: Diolch, Llywydd. There are no changes to this week's business. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Russell George AC: Trefnydd, I note the health Minister's recent comments regarding her inability in law to dismiss executive members of Betsi Cadwaladr health board, and there seems to be or there may be an implication that the Minister would have dismissed them had she the powers to do so. So, can I ask, Trefnydd, will you confirm whether the Senedd will soon be considering any business relating to giving Ministers the power to dismiss executive members in conjunction with health board chairs?

Lesley Griffiths AC: Obviously, this is a developing situation, and the Minister has meetings, and I'm sure she will update us in due course.

Delyth Jewell AC: Trefnydd, I'd like to ask for two statements, please. Firstly, I'd like to ask for a statement of clarification about the clean air Bill. Last week's business statement refers to the Minister for Climate Change making a statement on the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Bill. Now, the First Minister and the Minister for Climate Change have consistently referred to it as the 'clean air Bill', so I was a bit confused. The First Minister promised a clean air Bill specifically when he became leader of the Labour Party. It was included in the governing party's manifesto. Indeed, it was announced in the legislative statement and was mentioned again in March. So, can I ask why the change of name now? Is it still a clean air Bill? Is clean air still a Government priority, because, Trefnydd, could you explain why the Bill has been renamed at this late stage?
Secondly, I'd also like to ask for a statement, please, from the transport Minister, regarding the maintenance of trains in the Transport for Walesfleet. I understand a significant proportion of TfW's class 175s had to be pulled from service last week on Wednesday and Thursday because a number of them caught fire within a month. This resulted in over 100 services being curtailed or cancelled, including all services to Treherbert and those services west of Carmarthen. Now, as I understand it, the enclosed engine of the trains requires regular cleaning to prevent fires. This has been managed by the maintenance teams at Canton depot, but apparently the maintenance contract was recently transferred to a new provider. Minor repairs at the Canton depot have now stopped. Could a statement please give us assurance that the class 175s will continue to be properly maintained to avoid a situation like these fires occurring again?

Lesley Griffiths AC: Thank you. With regard to your second question, the class 175 trains are planned to be withdrawn from use here later during this year, 2023, once enough brand-new 197 trains are available to replace them, and at the moment TfW are only operating six of the brand-new trains. So, that was planned anyway. As you say, they have taken a number of their long-distance class 175 trains out of service, just for a short period at the current time, to carry out safety inspections following some concerns, and there have been some recent incidents with those trains. There was a fire in the engine bay of a class 175 train—I think that was last week—and it was the third time that there had been such an incident in a very short period of time, and I know that Transport for Wales have apologised for this disruption caused to passengers. But I think it is the right decision. I think it's really important that those necessary safety inspections are—. You've got to consider the balance, haven't you, of safety risks?
With regard to your first question, the reason for the change in the title is because the Bill has been extended.

Janet Finch-Saunders AC: Could I have a statement, please, from the Minister for Climate Change on building safety? My colleague Andrew Davies raised the issue today about the shocking situation in Grenfell, with hundreds of residents in Wales still living in fear that they could be caught up in a similar horrific event. We put a question in, asking how many flat fires since Grenfell there have been, since 2017, and there have been 367. So, you can imagine how people are feeling very scared.
Last Wednesday, around 100 individuals participated in the Welsh building safety crisis meeting held here, and it was disappointing—and I'll put in on record—that whilst we did have Rhys ab Owen and Jane Dodds, there was not a single representative from the Government or any of its elected Member. As a few residents put it to us, 'Labour's absence of representation last night is evidence of the lack of empathy and willingness to help leaseholders.'
Llywydd, there are numerous issues that need addressing, but I've put them into a small amount: private leaseholders treated less favourably than social housing and housing association tenants, and financial carnage, with leaseholders left stuck funding measures such as a waking watch. And for those who don't know, a waking watch is where, in some of these blocks, residents have to pay towards somebody being present in the building 24 hours a day, so that if there was a spark or anything, they would be on watch to ensure that it didn't actually turn into a fire. There have been concerns about a lack of mental health support, failed communication with affected residents, building safety surveys arranged by the Welsh Government, and yet, one lady in particular had been waiting 18 months for £75,000. So, there are many aspects to this shocking crisis and I do feel that the Minister should, through you, Trefnydd, provide a statement to this Chamber. Diolch.

Lesley Griffiths AC: Well, as you know, there is a significant piece of work ongoing regarding building safety, and there isn't a statement timetabled at the current time, but I will ensure that the Minister for Climate Change does update Members, probably in the Easter to summer term.

Rhun ap Iorwerth AC: I would like a statement, please, on the practical work that will be done by Betsi Cadwaladr health board now that it is under special measures. Particularly, I want to see progress in providing improved primary care in Holyhead and the area. There is a crisis in primary care in Holyhead; there has been ever since two surgeries came under the direct control of Betsi Cadwaladr in 2019. We've won the long-term argument for a new health centre in Holyhead, but, of course, that's going to take some time to deliver.
But what the two surgeries managed by Betsi Cadwaladr had intended to do was to bring their services together on one site. The hope was that that one site could have been developed by the end of last year, so that there was more flexibility in terms of staffing, and an opportunity to provide better care. It didn't happen, because Betsi Cadwaladr hadn't given it sign-off. We need an assurance that that can happen as a matter or urgency, for the sake of the people of Holyhead, who have suffered for far too long in terms of the level of healthcare available to them, and a statement from Government would be a means of showing that things can hopefully progress slightly quicker.

Lesley Griffiths AC: I'm not aware of the specific case that you mention in Holyhead. I would think that, probably, the most appropriate way forward would be for you to first either contact or speak to their new director of primary care, Rachel Page, to see what work is being undertaken, rather than having a Government statement.

Jane Dodds AS: Good afternoon, Minister. You wouldn't find me often saying that I support Michael Gove, but I'm afraid, on this particular issue, I can see that, in England, Michael Gove has actually moved the agenda on for those people trapped in buildings that are unsafe. With Janet, and with Rhys, I attended the meeting last Wednesday. We heard very emotional stories. These are very human stories. We heard of a father of an 18-month-old who is terrified of staying, living in his own home. We heard from older people that they had made these flats their investments for life. One pensioner, £500 out of her £800 pension goes on service charges and the waking watch night staff. These are real human stories and, coming up to six years after Grenfell, it feels like the Welsh Government is really well behind the curve on being able to help these people financially, but also in terms of their mental health. So, I would like to ask for a statement from the Minister around the timescale of us actually putting in place remediation action that is going to help these people trapped in buildings in Wales. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Lesley Griffiths AC: Thank you. You will have heard my answer to Janet Finch-Saunders—that I will ensure a statement is brought forward between Easter and summer term. Again, you will have heard the First Minister's answers to the leader of the opposition, and also he referred, I think, to the fact that the Minister for Climate Change will be attending the next meeting of the building safety strategic stakeholder group. So, I do think it's good to let this work continue, and then bring a statement forward.
I didn't actually refer to this in my answer to Janet Finch-Saunders, but there is certainly no lack of empathy or sympathy on behalf of the Welsh Government towards these people. I think you're absolutely right, and I'm sure that a lot of the stories were very emotional. Everybody's entitled to peace in their own home, and, clearly, there are a lot of residents who are very upset and distressed.

Mark Isherwood AC: I call for a single statement from the health Minister on raising awareness of diabetic ketoacidosis, or DKA, a complication of type 1 diabetes. Yesterday, I met with Dee Pinnington, to discuss her raising-awareness campaign, following the death of her son, Alastair, or Ali, Thomas, in 2018 from DKA, as a complication of his type 1 diabetes. Ali was a singer and musician from Flint, who had two young children, and died of DKA aged 35. He'd been diagnosed at 21. DKA is a life-threatening problem that affects people with diabetes, resulting from increased levels of a chemical called ketones in the blood. It causes excessive thirst, frequent urination, fatigue and vomiting. Although deaths from DKA are preventable, people with DKA need to be seen immediately for treatment. Dee Pinnington has produced a bilingual leaflet with the health board to raise awareness of DKA, which is now in every hospital in north Wales, but she told me that she's trying to get the word out more widely. So, I call for a statement on how the Welsh Government can assist with this accordingly. Thank you.

Lesley Griffiths AC: Thank you. You obviously describe a very distressing situation. I personally have never heard of DKA, so I think it's really good that leaflets have now been made available in every hospital, to ensure that people are aware of this condition. I will certainly ask the Minister for Health and Social Services if there's anything we can do as a Welsh Government to perhaps help with that campaign, and make sure that those leaflets perhaps are even more widely available across Wales.

Rhys ab Owen AS: Trefnydd, I'd like two statements, please, on housing issues, and I'm glad you've indicated already the willingness to give one. But firstly, could the Welsh Government provide an oral statement on the impact of the local housing allowance in Wales? The Bevan Foundation recently found that there's a significant gap between local housing allowance and rent, this leading into poverty and homelessness. And in Wales, 70 per cent of the private rental tenants who get help with their housing costs from local housing allowance do not get enough to cover their rent; 70 per cent, that's the highest proportion in Britain. So, could we look into that, please, Trefnydd?
Secondly, to reiterate the points raised by my colleagues Janet Finch-Saunders and Jane Dodds, could we have a debate, please, on fire safety in our high-rise flats, and the effectiveness of the Welsh building safety fund? I was struck, like Jane Dodds, by some of the comments in that meeting, especially young families, like my own, worried about bringing up their children in their homes, and also retired people, who are struggling financially when they really should be enjoying retirement. There was a real sense of frustration and, at times, anger at that meeting, and, rightly or wrongly, Trefnydd, they really do feel ignored. So, another debate at the Senedd on the effectiveness of the Welsh building safety fund, I think, would go a long way for them to feel heard and feel appreciated. Diolch yn fawr.

Lesley Griffiths AC: Well, I don't think I've got anything further to add to your second question that I haven't already said to both Janet Finch-Saunders and to Jane Dodds.In relation to your first request, I am aware of the Bevan Foundation report, and I believe that the Minister for Climate Change is currently considering that.

Gareth Davies AS: Could I ask for a statement from the Government regarding care home provision in Denbighshire? As I've mentioned a couple of times in the Senedd Chamber now, I'm undertaking a programme of care home visits in my constituency, and the common theme that's currently emerging is the fact that care homes that run at, say, for example, a 40/50 capacity, are actually only operating at half of that sometimes, and that's mostly due to the lack of recruitment and retention of staff within care homes, and it's becoming a real issue, obviously with patient flow and discharges from hospital. Part of the issue that care home providers are talking about is the actual care home fee in Denbighshire. And I know I've mentioned it before, and I know the leader of the council gets a little upset with me when I mention it, but it would be remiss of me not to bring it up, because, where there is a slight increase in the care home fee for this financial year, comparatively against other counties—sorry, neighbouring counties—it's the second lowest care home fee provider, only behind Flintshire. Given the density of the population in Rhyl and Prestatyn, together with the amount of elderly people, and, indeed, the care homes that go with that, it's becoming a problem and it's not reflective of the demographics in Denbighshire. So, could I have a statement from the Government outlining some of the training opportunities and what more we can do in Denbighshire and more widely to attract people into care home careers, and to reassure people that it is a rewarding career, and it could be very successful, with the right training and provision in place? Thank you.

Lesley Griffiths AC: Thank you. I think the Welsh Government have certainly always put forward the very strong case, I think, that it can be a very rewarding career—working in the care home and social care sector. I'm aware that Care Forum Wales—gosh, I think, it's about 12, 13, 14 years ago now—it was a programme that they started to make sure there was professional development for people working in care homes, and the Welsh Government certainly supported that. Recruitment is a real issue. I think we all recognise that. I passed a very large care home, not far from here, the other evening, and there was a big banner outside saying, 'We are recruiting.' It's not an issue just in Wales either, and we certainly saw—. We ask a great deal, don't we, of our staff in our are care homes and social care, and unfortunately we have seen many leave the profession and also issues with recruitment. You will be aware the Welsh Government brought forward the real living wage, which we implemented for social care workers, earlier this year, to deliver on our commitment to introduce it to all social care workers, and we made £43 million available this financial year.

James Evans MS: Trefnydd, I'd like a statement from yourself, in your role as the rural affairs Minister, about the attacks that we're seeing on sheep by dogs in our communities. I've seen on Facebook in my own patch this week two sheep that have died from poor owners letting their dogs off leads in fields where there are livestock that are heavy in lamb. So, can we have, please, a statement from you about what the Welsh Government is doing to tackle this issue to make sure that our farmers do not lose livestock to dog attacks during this very busy period for them?

Lesley Griffiths AC: Thank you. It's something I take very seriously, and unfortunately, particularly this time of year, when we have lambing, we do see a number of the cases that you refer to. One thing I always encourage is responsible ownership by people with dogs. You'll be aware that we fund—the Welsh Government funds—the rural crime and wildlife commissioner, and it's a piece of work we specifically asked him to look at too. I've also had discussions with DEFRA, because I think the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill is an area where we could improve on the legislation. I'm not sure that all the legislation that we have is fit for purpose. Some of it is very, very old. And, just yesterday, I was in an inter-ministerial group with my counterparts from across the UK and raised the stalling of the kept animals Bill, because we've put a lot of effort into that—and unfortunately, as I say, it is stalled—to encourage them to restart, because I do think it will help with this issue.

I thank the Trefnydd.

3. Debate: Welsh Rates of Income Tax 2023-24

The next item will be the debate on Welsh rates of income tax for 2023-24, and I call on the Minister for finance to move the motion. Rebecca Evans.

Motion NDM8215 Lesley Griffiths
To propose that the Senedd in accordance with section 116D of the Government of Wales Act 2006, agrees the Welsh rate resolution for the 2023-24 Welsh rates of income tax as follows:
a) the Welsh rate for the purpose of calculating the basic rate of income tax is 10p in the pound;
b) the Welsh rate for the purpose of calculating the higher rate of income tax is 10p in the pound; and
c) the Welsh rate for the purpose of calculating the additional rate of income tax is 10p in the pound.

Motion moved.

Rebecca Evans AC: Llywydd, thank you for the opportunity to open this debate on the Welsh rates of income tax resolution for the 2023-24. Welsh rates of income tax were introduced in April 2019 and apply to non-savings, non-dividend income tax payers resident in Wales. Welsh rates of income tax raise well over £2.5 billion each year towards the funding of the Welsh Government's budget. The Welsh rates for the next financial year were announced at the draft budget. The motion to set Welsh rates of income tax for 2023-24 will mean that Welsh taxpayers will continue to pay the same income tax as their English and Northern Irish counterparts.
Our approach to setting income tax rates for next year is set squarely within the context in which we operate as a fiscally responsible Government. We face considerable pressure on our public services due to high levels of inflation, and our residents are challenged every day with the cost-of-living crisis. Our income tax base is relatively weak, which mean that any significant change to our resources through income tax rises would require an increase to the basic rate, all while our residents are struggling to pay their energy and food bills.
I have been very clear that now is not the right time to increase income tax in Wales. The UK Government's decision to freeze income tax thresholds means that our lowest earners have now been dragged into the income tax system. Raising the rates or making any changes now would add an additional contribution on those least able to afford it, and at a time when the overall tax contribution is at its highest level for 70 years. The context we have faced during this budget process has been incredibly challenging. Inflation has eroded our budget to worryingly low levels, and the UK Government has failed to lift our budgets to address that funding gap. The reality has been that we could not meet all of the pressures identified within the funding available. Despite this, our 2023-24 budget was designed to maximise the impact of our available resources through balancing the short-term needs associated with the ongoing cost-of-living crisis whilst also continuing to make longer term change and deliver on our programme for government ambitions.
We have a responsibility to deliver a budget that is fully costed and balances spending needs with the financial pressures people in Wales are already facing, and retaining Welsh rates of income tax for each band at 10p in the pound allows us to do that. Based on the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecasts, setting the rate at 10p for all bands is expected to raise £2.795 billion in 2023-24. Although rates haven't changed, WRIT is expected to have provided an additional £89 million to the Welsh Government budget since it was devolved. Together with the funding received through the block grant, Welsh income tax contributions are a vital part of the budget, and I strongly recommend that Members support the motion today so that we can continue to support public services in Wales at this very challenging time. The motion today also ensures that we continue to deliver our programme for government commitment not to take more in Welsh rates of income tax from Welsh families for at least as long as the economic impact of coronaviruslasts.
Looking further ahead, we'll be guided by our tax principles, which commit us to designing clear and stable taxes that deliver our progressive agenda. Those with the broadest shoulders should pay a greater share. Ensuring that we make the most of our devolved tax responsibilities also means working closely with His Majesty's Revenue and Customs on the administration of WRIT. As highlighted in the National Audit Office's most recent report, the robust processes and governance arrangements with HMRC provide a strong basis for the effective and efficient collection and administration of WRIT, going forward. The WRIT out turn for 2020-21 was published by HMRC last year. The outturn was fairly close to forecasts, given the exceptional economic conditions at the time. A positive reconciliation amount has been added to the budget for 2023-24. I look forward to the debate today, and the Senedd is asked to agree the Welsh rates resolution that will set the Welsh rates of income tax for 2023-24, and I ask Members for their support this afternoon.

Peter Fox AS: Thank you, Minister, for that statement. As I'm sure you know, Minister, Welsh workers take home the lowest pay packets in the United Kingdom—an astonishing £3,000 less than their counterparts in Scotland. The simple fact is that any rise in income tax would be a direct attack on hard-working people. So, I'm glad that the Welsh Government has chosen not to increase the Welsh rate of income tax this year. As it stands, around £2.8 billion of the Welsh Government's budget is raised through income tax alone. This is no small amount, as we know, and the people of Wales have trusted the Government with this money to deliver vital public services. With Welsh workers on the lowest wages in the United Kingdom, the last thing they need is to be dealing with politicians looking to take more of their hard-earned money. As many of us in the Chamber know, Wales has a large percentage of taxpayers who pay the basic rate—more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Whilst the basic rate taxpayers account for 92 per cent in Wales, that figure sits at 87 per cent across the rest of the UK.
I know there are some in this Chamber who would like to hike up income tax on the hard-working people of Wales, and I'm incredibly glad to see that they are in the minority. Such a move does not take into account the fact that this would disproportionately hit those who are struggling the most in society. It's also important to consider the very real implications that making changes to the additional rate of income tax would have to the tax base. We know that those paying the additional rate of income tax are most likely to migrate due to tax changes. Therefore, an increase to the additional rate would just result in fewer people paying taxes in Wales. I firmly believe that we should be looking to cut taxes whenever possible, not raise them, especially during a difficult time. We on the Welsh Conservative benches would certainly not raise income tax over the course of this Senedd term, yet Labour have made no such pledge, choosing instead to say that they would not raise income tax, as we've just heard, as long as the economic impact of coronavirus lasts. I would hope that, going forward, we see more of a concrete pledge from Labour Ministers so that people in Wales have more certainty surrounding the level of taxes they can expect to be paying.
On the wider point of devolved taxes, I want to stress the point that if the Welsh Government wants to introduce other taxes on the people of Wales, they must really consider what the economic and financial impacts would be on communities across the country. Minister, businesses in Wales are currently facing a cost-of-doing-business crisis due to global inflationary pressures as a result of Putin's barbaric invasion of Ukraine. I therefore strongly encourage you to urgently reconsider implementing a tourism tax by your Government.
To conclude, while I welcome the decision by Labour Ministers not to look to raise income tax this year, we need to be taking a hard look at current tax policies, ensuring the Welsh Government uses devolved powers to help foster business growth, increase wages and ensure that hard work pays off across the country for everyone. Thank you.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: May I thank the Minister for opening the debate? It seems that we've had this debate three or four times already in the past month or two, and I make no apology for the fact that the thanks for that is to Plaid Cymru, because we have been willing to grapple with this issue, rather than just nodding it through as perhaps would have happened usually. It's us as a party that have made the case for using these powers that we have. And what purpose is there in having those powers unless there is a real willingness to use them when circumstances require, of course, and not just under any circumstances? I have to say that if the Government don't feel that now is the time to do that, then look at the trajectory: the more austerity that comes from the Conservatives and the more cuts that are forced on Wales, the stronger the argument for using these powers will become, ultimately, so we must prepare the ground so that, when the time comes, Wales is ready to go if needs be. But I don't want to be back here in a year's time hearing the Minister saying once again, 'Well, we don't know what the implications of varying tax levels would be, so it's difficult for us to do anything about it.'
I do understand, of course, that it's a difficult decision, but what has disappointed me about the general debate around all of this so far is the monochrome nature of the debate: raising income tax, and that's it. Well, no—we can look at this more creatively, in a multifaceted way, and perhaps with the use of council tax as a counterpoint in terms of the impact on people who aren't on higher salaries. But, there we are—we are here today with one motion before us and one issue to decide upon.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Now, during the recent debate on the further devolution of income tax powers to Wales, the finance Minister mentioned in her response that understanding the behavioural changes is key to developing a maturing Welsh tax policy agenda, and I agree with that, of course; Plaid Cymru agrees with that. It is an important factor to look at these things through a Welsh-specific context. But it is apparent that the evidence base is lacking. Indeed, the report from the Finance Committee on the draft budget expressed disappointment that the Welsh Government hasn't undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the impact of behavioural changes that would arise from a change in policy. Now, the Minister referred to the Swiss study, of course, of behavioural change, which has been built in to the Welsh Government's ready reckoner, and we believe maybe that that is the closest available proxy for Wales. But I'm sure you do agree that it isn't the best that it could be, and certainly it doesn't reflect the particularities of the Welsh tax base and, therefore, a tailored Welsh-specific piece of work to feed directly into future Government decisions on this is now imperative. So, I want to understand from the Minister exactly how that will now proceed and for us to understand, or to be reassured, that we won't be here back here again, as I said earlier, asking the same questions and listening to the same non-answers.
Now, Wales has possessed the power to vary the levels of income tax. It's never been used. Consistently, we've maintained the same rates as have been set by the UK Government for England and Northern Ireland. It's interesting, though, the First Minister did, in response to some of the decisions made by the Truss administration, suggest that might be a scenario where we could and maybe should look at varying the rate of income tax in Wales. But, of course, even then, that evidence base wouldn't be there, so are you suggesting that, if the First Minister thinks it needs doing, we can do it without an evidence base? Is it one rule for the Welsh Government and another one for Plaid Cymru? Because, surely we need to get on with doing that work, so that when the Government feels they need to act in that way, then they're able to do so.
Now, the fact that 85 per cent, or more even, of Welsh taxpayers are on the basic rate has been cited as a reason not to adjust the Welsh rates of income tax, but, as I said—and I fully sympathise with that difficulty—we have put forward here our case for allowing Wales to have the same powers as Scotland in terms of changing and setting our own income tax bands, so that we can more forensically target a variation in the rate of income tax.
Now, my fear is that the debate really isn't happening to the degree that it should be and grappling with some of these complexities to the extent that it should be. There is a consensus, if you look at the Wales Governance Centre, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others. These are questions that need to be addressed, and the Welsh Government hasn't sufficiently, I believe, responded to that or to the challenge that we have set in needing to step up to have that discussion properly, and I hope, if anything, that our interventions over the last few weeks and months will at least lead to that. Diolch.

Mike Hedges AC: I'll start off by saying I'm ideologically supportive of increasing the tax rate on the two higher income bands. Higher paid people should pay more for the provision of public services. It's part of what we pay for living in a civilised society. The problem we have is, one, the partial devolution of income tax—it's only one part of the tax on income we have devolved. We don't have dividend income devolved and we don't have capital gains tax devolved. So, you've got two other taxes on income that are not devolved. We have no control at all over dividend taxation; we don't even get any of the benefit of it. And this goes to it simply: people who work for themselves can benefit from a range of perks. But the best for self-employed people is to set up a company, pay yourself a dividend not a wage, and then you will pay a substantially lower tax rate—8.75 per cent basic rate, 33.75 per cent higher rate, 39.35 per cent additional rate. So, what we've got is that people are using, now under the current system, a means of moving into dividend income rather than a wage, because that saves them, from the numbers I've just talked about, substantial sums of money.
Further, we have cross-border movement between England and Wales. There is no tax advantage or disadvantage of being a Welsh or an English taxpayer, and whilst some people are down for the wrong country some of the time, the net effect should be zero because there's no benefit of doing it. If you bring an advantage in, then people may well register in the lower taxing areas they can legally choose. Some people can not just move over the border; some people who have multiple properties can decide which property they wish to have as their major residence, and as such, change how much tax they pay.
Then we have non-domiciled status to avoid income tax. This is something that I think is fundamentally wrong. We're not going to be able to change that today, but I think it's something we need to talk about. Capital gains tax is charged at a rate of 10 or 18 per cent for basic rate taxpayers, and 20 or 28 per cent for higher rates, all substantially lower than the tax rate. Increasing the lower tax rate would affect some of the most poorly paid in society. A 1p increase in income tax would mean for every £100 of tax currently paid, £105 would need to be paid. What does £5 mean? For those of who shop in Lidl, it means half a pound of butter, a loaf of bread and two pints of milk. To people who are on low incomes, that is an important £5 when they're buying food.When we talk about financial need, increasing the tax bill will not help.
The number of additional-rate taxpayers in Wales is shown by HMRC to be under 1,500 for this year. These are, of course, generally mobile. Raising the additional rate will raise very little money for Wales. My expectation would be a decrease in the income from it. I will be supporting the rates suggested. What I would urge the Welsh Government to do is partial devolution of all taxes on income, which would mean partial devolution of dividend rates and partial devolution of capital gains, so that we could actually tax them at the same level as income tax. That would be fair and that would mean that we could get substantial sums of money from people who found a way round the system. I'm glad the First Minister is nodding. I think this really is an area that we really ought to be giving some thought to.
I think Silk got it wrong, and I know, looking at the Chair of the Finance Committee, we're hoping to get Paul Silk in to discuss where we are with the devolution of taxation. I think there are some things here that were unintended consequences of the devolution of taxation, and we need to get it right. Taxing dividends and capital gains as we tax earned income would be a much fairer way of going forward.

The Minister for finance to reply. Rebecca Evans.

Rebecca Evans AC: Thank you, and thank you to all Members for their contributions to the debate today. Of course, as we move further into Senedd term, we'll continue to keep under review the vital role that WRIT plays as a partially devolved tax here in Wales.
I think Llyr opened his comments this afternoon by saying we've discussed Welsh rates of income tax many times in the past few weeks, and I think that's a really good thing, because there's so much interest from across the Chamber, from Senedd committees, from academic bodies outside the Senedd. I think sometimes we just have to remind ourselves that we are at the start of a journey here. We only had Welsh rates of income tax introduced in April 2019, but it's absolutely right that we do have that eye on the future to consider where we go next.
Just to respond to some of the specific points, behavioural impact I think was something that was raised very strongly in the debate. I would say behavioural change isn't the only thing that we consider when we consider Welsh rates of income tax. We obviously have to think of the overall economic picture, people's overall tax burden. I think the points that Mike Hedges was making then were quite powerful in that sense, setting out the real choices that many people are facing in Wales at the moment, and also, of course, the promises that we've made to people in our manifesto in respect of Welsh rates of income tax.
To turn to the point about behavioural impacts, a change in tax rates is obviously likely to affect people's behaviour, and that will then have an impact on the amount of tax that is collected. Llyr Gruffydd referred to our ready reckoner, which takes account of what we understand the behavioural impacts to be, based on the Swiss study. Of course, we look closely at the experience of Scotland, where they have recently introduced higher rates for those on higher incomes. In the current year, the Scottish income tax revenues are actually expected to make a negative net contribution to the Scottish Government's budget. The Scottish Fiscal Commission is expecting a net negative impact of around £100 million on the Scottish budget this year, despite an additional tax effort by Scottish taxpayers of around £850 million from rate and threshold changes. That really does emphasise the need for us to go into this very clear-sightedly, with the evidence base we need. Where there are gaps in evidence, absolutely we will be looking to explore what more we can do to fill those gaps.
HMRC did analyse the earlier tax changes in Scotland, and they produced some estimates on behavioural impacts. They have been published, and they were presented at our tax conference last year. I thought that was a really important intervention. Those estimates, though, didn’t cover migration responses to tax changes, which would obviously be of interest to us here in Wales. HMRC is now progressing work on a longitudinal data set, which will hopefully allow some additional analysis of the behavioural impacts of tax changes, including migration responses. We’ll be looking very carefully at that, and our officials are in regular contact with HMRC.
On the points that were made about the further devolution of income tax, further powers to vary income tax thresholds would provide us with some additional policy tools in the Welsh Government. We do have to consider very carefully the needs and the risks, including the risk of much greater exposure to relative tax-based growth between Wales and elsewhere in the UK. I think that would be particularly of concern to us in relation to the higher and additional rates, where our exposure is currently only 10p in each band. Growth in revenues from these two bands does tend to be more volatile from year to year than the basic rate revenues, and tends to vary more between different parts of the UK. This affects, of course, the year-to-year net budgetary impact of income tax devolution via the block grant adjustment mechanism, so it's potentially a risky step for us to take. We would have to do that with clear sight, again.
When we’ve talked about this important agenda recently we have, I think, all looked forward to the final report of the constitutional commission to see what it has to say on our tax powers and the process for seeking the devolution of further tax powers. I’m sure that will be part of the mix. I just want to give colleagues my reassurance that I see this as an ongoing discussion. It’s an ongoing area where there does need to be greater evidence procured, and we will obviously continue to have those discussions in order to find a way forward.
I just want to remind colleagues, as I come to the end of my contribution here, that the WRIT resolution must be passed ahead of the final budget. Without WRIT revenues, up to £2.8 billion of financing within our final budget would be unavailable. That, of course, would render our 2023-24 final budget unaffordable. I hope colleagues would agree that that would not be an acceptable outcome. So, I think despite the extensive challenges that we face, we have taken some difficult decisions based on collaboration, transparency and sustainability, and I would commit to continuing to take that approach as we consider the role of income tax in future years.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, and therefore we will defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

4. Debate: The Final Budget 2023-24

The next item is item 4, the debate on the final budget for 2023-24. I once again call on the Minister for finance to move the motion. Rebecca Evans.

Motion NDM8213 Lesley Griffiths
To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 20.25, approves the Annual Budget for the financial year 2023-24 laid in the Table Office by the First Minister on 28 February 2023.

Motion moved.

Rebecca Evans AC: Diolch, Llywydd. I am pleased to open the debate on our 2023-24 final budget. As I outlined when publishing our draft budget, this is undoubtedly a budget made in hard times for hard times. It reflects the constraints of our funding settlement, but despite this, we remain ambitious for Wales. Despite the challenges that we've faced, this budget has been forged with a spirit of collaboration and transparency, putting the people and communities of Wales first. In that spirit I want to start by thanking all of those who’ve contributed to this budget. This budget would not have been possible without the participation and co-operation of colleagues within my own party. I also want to thank Siân Gwenllian, the lead designated Member for the co-operation agreement’s budgetary arrangements, for our ongoing engagement and the productive working relationship that we have. I’d also like to thank Jane Dodds for our constructive discussions, particularly in relation to rural dentistry, and the way in which these have shaped the plans that we’re voting on today.
It's also important to recognise that this is a budget that builds on the foundations that we outlined last year as part of our three-year spending review. Our 2022-23 budget provided a substantial three-year budget package up to 2024-25 using every lever to strengthen public services, tackle climate change, tackle the nature emergency and support businesses and people in Wales. As we reflect, this has been a year where we have seen, and continue to see, the ongoing impacts of inflation. We have seen three Prime Ministers, three Chancellors and the shocking mismanagement of public finances by the UK Government. The funding provided by the autumn statement fell far short of the interventions needed to meet the challenges that we face. We have now seen these impacts spelled out through the 2023-24 budget process.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (David Rees) took the Chair.

Rebecca Evans AC: Despite this context, I remain proud that our approach remains grounded in ensuring that every pound invested makes the greatest positive impact. We have delivered a budget that recognises the need to balance the short-term impacts of the cost-of-living crisis, whilst also doing all that we can to drive forward the longer term change and deliver on our programme for government ambitions. This is a budget that has protected front-line public services and our ambitions for the future, continued to provide help to those most affected by the cost-of-living crisis and supported our economy through recessionary times. Through taking fundamental action to reprioritise our budgets, alongside the limited funding from the UK Government, we have allocated £165 million for the NHS, with £70 million to deliver the real living wage for social care; £227 million for local government, ensuring that no local authority will receive less than a 6.5 per cent increase in core funding; a direct investment of £319 million for non-domestic rates relief; and, in response to the cost-of-living crisis, investment in our basic income pilot and the discretionary assistance fund.
Building on the actions within our draft budget, I was pleased to announce an additional £164 million of financial transactions capital funding, of £84 million in 2023-24 and £80 million in 2024-25, within this final budget. This includes £63 million to help to extend Help to Buy—Wales until March 2025, supporting people to realise their dream of home ownership. Building on the package of measures within the co-operation agreement, I was pleased to agree, with Plaid Cymru, substantive action to improve the availability and affordability of housing in local communities for those on local incomes, as well as in response to the impact of the cost-of-living crisis. This includes £40 million to assist those in mortgage difficulty at an early stage to enable them to stay in their homes, as well as £59 million supporting the delivery of new low-carbon social housing. My colleague the climate change Minister will undertake further work with Plaid Cymru to further develop these proposals. Combined, these allocations will continue to support the delivery of our priorities contained within our 10-year Wales infrastructure investment strategy, building on our existing £1.8 billion portfolio of financial transactions capital investments.
Turning to scrutiny, I want to thank all Members for their constructive engagement throughout our scrutiny process. My Cabinet colleagues and I will be pleased to agree with the vast majority of our respective committees' recommendations. As we have collectively recognised, the context in which we are delivering this budget has meant that we have not been able to respond to all of the areas that have been identified.
Looking ahead to the UK Government's spring statement on 15 March, we recognise that the key levers to respond to the numerous challenges that we face, such as powers over the tax and welfare systems, are reserved powers and lie with the UK Government to utilise. I will, of course, continue to call on the UK Government to do more on the impacts of inflation on Welsh budgets, the pressure on the NHS and the challenges of social care, ensuring that there is fair funding and investment in Wales. In particular, on the issue of pay, we maintain our calls on the UK Government to provide funding to enable us to ensure all our public sector workers are fairly rewarded for the important work that they do.
We have demonstrated that, in Wales, unlike in Westminster, we are prepared to work in social partnership with our trade union partners and do all that we can within our existing settlement. The health service in Wales is under extreme pressure, and the UK Government must use its spring budget to invest in the NHS to ensure that services can respond to the significant pressures following the COVID pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis, and deliver wider reform.
I have written to the Chancellor, highlighting the wealth of opportunity in Wales for UK Government investment to support enterprise and productivity, including rail, renewable energy and research and development. It's vital that the UK Government invests in green energy and decarbonisation to improve our energy security for the future and to contribute to meeting our net-zero targets. I also continue to press the UK Government to review its categorisation of the £100 billion investment in HS2 as an England-and-Wales project. This decision severely restricts our ability to invest in rail in Wales, and our position is one that, I believe, has strong cross-party support, both in the Senedd and the UK Parliament.
In closing, despite the challenges we face, I am confident that this budget continues to maximise our available funding. It's a budget that maintains our commitment to prioritise the most vulnerable and public services, whilst continuing to create a fairer, stronger, greener Wales for all.

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.I am pleased to contribute to this debate on the Welsh Government’s final budget in my role as Chair of the Finance Committee.The committee’s report on the draft budget included 28 recommendations, and I'm pleased that the Minister has been able to accept the majority of them.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Nevertheless, I would like to express some disappointment at the start of my contribution today that very limited changes have been made between the draft and final budgets. Our committee, as well as a number of other committees, made concrete recommendations in a number of key strategic areas and so, it’s a shame that the Government has missed an opportunity to respond positively to these before today’s debate. As a result, my contribution today will be relatively short, given that there’s not much extra to comment on from the draft budget.
Turning first to specific recommendations, we called for the Minister to carry out detailed work to model the behavioural impact of varying Welsh rates of income tax across all bands ahead of future budget rounds. Whilst we are pleased that the Minister has accepted this recommendation, we are less clear on the actual steps that the Minister will take in this area. This was a key recommendation for us, and we expect to see further clarity provided in next year’s budget documentation to demonstrate that serious consideration has been given to changing the rates.I must say that this seems to be a general theme in the response provided by the Minister. That is, although a number of the recommendations have been accepted or accepted in principle, there is a lack of information on the specific actions that will be taken to address them.
As Members will know, we criticised the draft budget for lack of clarity, and I’m afraid that the Government’s response, whilst going some of that way, does not go far enough to allay all those fears or concerns. We value the Minister’s willingness to appear before the committee and to engage with us on key issues, but we need to have a constructive and forthright exchange if we are to get to the heart of the matter. We as a committee can confirm that we are willing to do this, and I hope that the Minister will echo that commitment.
I would now like to focus on other areas. Allocations for financial transactions capital were not included in the draft budget for the second year running. I thank the Minister for her recent letter setting out an update on the allocations prior to the debate. Whilst we note the constraints and complexities of how ring-fenced financial transactions can be used, last year, we were told that the lack of allocations included in the draft budget would not set a precedent. I acknowledge the Minister’s commitment to take steps to ensure that this is not the case for the next financial year, and we hope to see the full allocation at the draft budget stage.
I turn now to some of our detailed recommendations, which deserve to be mentioned again in the context of today’s debate. On support for the cost of living, a key aspect of our budget scrutiny was the support provided to help with the rising costs of living. We are pleased that the Minister has accepted our recommendation to prioritise the streamlining of financial assistance schemes, under the proposed Welsh benefits charter. It is good to hear that a draft charter has been co-produced with stakeholders, and we look forward to this charter being published by the end of the year.
It was also encouraging to hear that the Welsh Government is committed to working towards a Welsh benefits system that has a single point of contact where an individual only has to tell their story once. We have been long advocates of a ‘no wrong door’ approach and it's pleasing that progress is being made in this area.
Turning to education maintenance allowance, however, it is difficult to understand why the Government has not been able to increase the value of the education maintenance allowance, which has remained unchanged since the mid 2000s. The Welsh Government claims that one of its three priorities for this budget is to help those most affected by the cost-of-living crisis. Yet, we found that more could be done to support children and young people, who are disproportionately affected by this crisis. The Welsh Government has accepted a recommendation from the children and young people committee’s report to commission an independent review of EMA, stating that the findings will inform any changes to the scheme. However, we urge the Government to prioritise any further funding received in year from the UK Government to support our most vulnerable learners by raising the value of the EMA and to mitigate the risk of them leaving education in pursuit of employment.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Finally, I would like to thank the Minister for her ongoing commitment to reviewing the budget process protocol, which sets out an understanding between the Senedd and the Welsh Government on budget scrutiny arrangements.The trend in recent years for the delay in publication of the Welsh Government’s draft budget in light of the timing of UK fiscal events has resulted in a truncated scrutiny process with less time available for committees to engage with stakeholders and look in detail at the budgetary proposals that have been put forward. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for considering changes to the protocol and for agreeing to appear before the Finance Committee prior to the publication of future draft budgets, should timescales be delayed again.
As noted in our report, I will also shortly be writing to other committee Chairs to consult on the level and quality of the budget documentation accompanying the draft budget, including the timeliness of the responses provided by the Government, with a view to seeking improvements for future years.We look forward to working with the Minister on these and other issues, and I hope that our constructive conversations will continue to ensure that any changes can be implemented in good time for the 2024-25 budget round. Thank you very much.

Peter Fox AS: Can I start by thanking the Minister for her statement again? As a past council leader, I know that many of the decisions that have been made by the Minister would not have been easy. However, too much of this budget simply misses the mark. While Labour Ministers have claimed to be prioritising the key issues for the people of Wales, the truth is that this is far from the case. Rather than focusing on the priorities of the hard-working people of Wales, Labour Ministers have become increasingly more distracted by new powers and pet projects on which they have been wasting time and money over many years. What is unique to Wales is the growing crisis in our Welsh NHS, missing aspiration in our schools, and Wales’s decades-long housing crisis—all a direct result of 25 years of poor policy making by Labour.
In this budget, we should have seen more money being directed towards cost-of-living challenges, towards our healthcare services, towards our schools and towards further support for business. But, under Labour control, our health service is seeing a real-terms cut of £228 million. This cut is despite the fact that the Welsh Government received an additional £305 million for the Welsh NHS and adult social care for 2023-24. The education and Welsh language budget has also seen a real-terms cut of £343.5 million and a cut of £43 million in cash terms, again, despite an additional £115 million consequential from the UK Government.
It’s clear that Labour haven’t got to grips with education in Wales. A quarter of a century of their rule sees the Welsh education system underperforming against other UK countries and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. It’s clear that, while teachers are striking as a result of chronic underfunding and understaffing, Labour Ministers are cutting the education budget. And not a lot changes. For over the last 10 years, Labour have underfunded our doctors, nurses and health professionals by £400 million, redirecting money that was meant to improve people’s healthcare outcomes to fund those pet projects and failed business ventures like Cardiff Airport.

Mike Hedges AC: Will you take an intervention, Peter?

Peter Fox AS: We must not forget that, for every £1 spent on the health service in England, Labour received £1.20 for Wales. And the same for education: £1 in England, £1.20 in Wales. Yet, we know that, in Wales, even before the pandemic, the Labour Government was only spending £1.05 on both of those. This begs the question: where has this money gone? Why is it not being used to deliver the healthcare and educational outcomes that the people of Wales so desperately deserve? And why are Labour and Plaid so transfixed on wasting over £100 million on more politicians here? [Interruption.] Oh, sorry.

[Inaudible.]—Peter. Could Members stop having a discussion across the Chamber so that we can hear the speaker, please?

Peter Fox AS: Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. And—

Hefin David AC: Just stop reading and get rid of the paper. Just say what—[Inaudible.]

Hefin, let the Member speak, please.

Peter Fox AS: Why are Labour and Plaid so transfixed with wasting over £100 million on new politicians in this place, rather than addressing the real struggles that the many people of Wales are facing?
Things need to be different. Rather than more of the same tax and spend policies that we see from Labour, the Welsh Conservatives have a plan to focus on the people's immediate priorities. We have already outlined our plan to clear NHS backlogs with care hotels, clearing the bed blocking, opening up our hospitals and ending the disgrace of queues of ambulances outside Welsh A&E. We would establish surgical hubs across Wales to end Labour's embarrassing NHS waiting time record.Not only do the people of Wales want to see Labour's NHS crisis tackled but they want to see more help with the cost-of-living challenges. That's why we wanted to freeze council tax for people across Wales, but do it by unlocking some of the huge reserves that are held by some councils across Wales.
We also know that we need to see growth in our economy and support for businesses. We've listened to businesses. We've got a plan to allow microbusinesses to flourish, creating jobs for local people, restoring the aspiration to Wales; not only that, but we want to help futureproof these businesses, helping businesses to do their bit to support the environment, unleashing a green revolution in Wales.
We want to address Labour's housing crisis in Wales by expanding the Help to Buy scheme, ensuring that it will encompass empty homes for renovation. This would restore another 20,000 homes into housing opportunities. Yes, I've noted the time, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I apologise.
So, to conclude, Dirprwy Lywydd, I know that the Welsh Government, like all Governments, is facing substantial challenges in the immediate term, but that is no excuse for inaction. We don't want more of the same stale economic policies that we have come to expect from both Plaid and Labour, we need to be looking for dynamic and innovative ways to push Wales forward, ensuring that our families and business can deal with the rising costs—

Thank you, Peter.

Peter Fox AS: I've nearly finished. The rising cost of living—

No. I have 14 Members wishing to speak. I need to use the time effectively. You need to conclude now, please.

Peter Fox AS: I could have finished then, Chair. So, with all of the things I've shared there, I'm afraid that this group will not be supporting this budget today for all of those reasons.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: That's hardly breaking news, Dirprwy Lywydd, but there we are. [Laughter.] Thank you for your valued contribution—appreciated, as always.
I have to say that the Welsh Government's budget for 2023-24 is a reflection, let's be honest, of perhaps the most challenging set of financial circumstances that we've ever experienced in the devolution era. The pressures of the post-COVID recovery, soaring inflation and, of course, the impact of the war in Ukraine, amongst other things, have all been exacerbated by the extreme folly of an out of touch and out of control Tory Government. Following a disastrous dalliance with the fantasy economics of unfunded tax cuts, the Tories are now resorting to yet another wave of austerity measures in a desperate attempt to salvage their electoral credibility.
Now, the bleak financial forecast that has been laid before us today is therefore, first and foremost, a damning indictment of this UK Government, whose catastrophic mismanagement of the UK economy has dragged Wales headlong into this quagmire. And as always, of course, as has always been the case under Tory-driven austerity, it's the poorest and the most vulnerable sections of society that are having to shoulder the heaviest burden as a result of public spending cuts and underinvestment.So, we do have sympathy with the Welsh Government having to factor in a £1.4 billion hit to their real-terms spending power over the next two years, however—that's what you're waiting for, isn't it? However, while we may agree with the Welsh Government on the causes of the current financial malaise, our diagnosis of how to address these problems obviously will differ.
Now, the constraints under which this budget was developed conclusively demonstrates that Wales is poorly served, I believe, by the current block grant model of devolved funding, which accounts for over 80 per cent of Welsh Government's day-to-day spending power. Despite the extensive range of policy areas that are now devolved to Wales, the delivery is still primarily dependent on UK Government spending decisions over which we have, effectively, no say. Though the nature of the block grant model does inherently restrict the Welsh Government's room for manoeuvre, that doesn't absolve the Welsh Government of criticism of many of the decisions that you have made in relation to this budget. We, as many others, I'm sure, have still serious concerns about, for example, the lack of any increase in funding for the housing support grant. That's particularly worrying, because we know what the implications will be. The decision not to implement the Welsh fuel support scheme for next winter will be alarming for many households who depended on that support over the past few months. The last-minute u-turn that we've heard already mentioned today on funding for the bus emergency scheme does cause considerable concern amongst bus operators, yes, but for the long-term viability of bus routes across Wales, particularly in rural areas, and particularly in light of the roads review. But, of course, this is what politics is all about, and our pragmatic approach, through the co-operation agreement, will deliver at least some of our manifesto commitments. It'll go at least some of the way to alleviate some of the challenges facing the people of Wales today.
So, I'm glad that we have been able to protect funding for the co-operation agreement, in fact adding certain elements to that where we feel that is necessary, and also exerting our influence over other areas of mutual interest, particularly relating to the cost-of-living crisis and the wider pressures on public services, with an emphasis on the preventative agenda. Now, this is something that's been spoken about for a long, long time, where we're seeing an evolving in that direction, and, for me, we need to accelerate that, because it is that longer-term investment that will actually reap benefits further down the line.
Now, of course, I couldn't let this moment pass without saying those three words—free school meals. Seventy million pounds will be committed next year to make sure that our children have nourishing meals in schools, and we're glad that that programme is moving in the right direction, and, obviously, we want to extend it as far as we can. Free childcare—we know of the £100 million committed there, and an uplift of another £10 million secured in our agreement.
And then, in terms of influencing the wider sphere of the budget, on housing—and we've seen, haven't we, the shocking figures on repossessions in Wales—£40 million over two years to assist those in mortgage difficulty at an early stage, to enable them to stay in their homes. And also on housing—£59 million over two years to support the delivery of new, low-carbon social housing. I could go on, but I see that I have very little time left.
But Plaid Cymru would be the first to recognise that there is more to do, and that is why we recognise that, if there is any further consequential coming to Wales, then we want to know, or we want everybody to know, that we have agreed prioritised areas. And the First Minister mentioned public sector pay as one key area that we still need to address, and we would be the first to admit that. But we also want to see extending the bus emergency scheme. We also want to see extending free school meals to secondary school, and we also want to see an increase in the education maintenance allowance.
So, this budget isn't perfect. Our influence doesn't extend to every part of this budget. But, through the co-operation agreement, and the few additional areas where we have managed to leverage greater investment, we are confident that this will at least go some of the way to challenge some of the long-standing issues and problems that the people of Wales are facing at this difficult time.

Mike Hedges AC: I intend to make several comments on the budget, but, first, I want to address the process. We are setting the budget for all devolved services in Wales. We continue to repeat we are a Parliament. Yet we timetable only one hour for the final debate on the budget, after half an hour to decide income tax rates. Put into context that Swansea council spent over four and a half hours setting their council tax and spending proposals for 2023-24, which is, historically, a short meeting; I've attended a council meeting that lasted over six hours setting the budget.
The budget does go through scrutiny by the Finance Committee, but the final decision is being made here today. Compare this to Westminster—the budget is usually followed by four days of debate on the budget resolutions. These are the tax measures announced in the budget, and each day of day of debate covers the different policy areas, such as health, education and defence. Why does the Welsh Government think that one hour is sufficient to enable final scrutiny of the budget, and half an hour to set income tax rates? And today, the budget is not even the main item on the agenda; we've got a major item coming up of passing legislation. If we don't treat ourselves seriously, if we don't treat the budget process seriously, why would we expect anybody else to treat what we do seriously?
On the budget itself, budgets are always about choices. We know rates are the business tax most disliked by businesses. This is because there are very few tricks, short of demolition, that can be used to reduce the rate bill. The draft budget 2023-24 set out that over £140 million is allocated for retail, leisure and hospitality relief, although I've also seen a figure of £116 million mentioned on the same item. And it says:
'We will continue to provide support for those sectors most directly affected by the pandemic through a 2023-24 retail, leisure and hospitality rates relief scheme. This will provide more than £140m of non-domestic rates relief for eligible businesses.
'Retail, leisure and hospitality ratepayers in Wales will receive 75% nondomestic rates relief throughout 2023-24. Like the similar scheme announced by the UK Government, the Welsh Government’s scheme will be capped at £110,000 per business across Wales.'
Scotland does not have such a scheme.Things like fast foods are franchised, including McDonald's, KFC, Subway, Starbucks, Costa Coffee, Domino's pizza. So, each franchise is an individual business, so the rate relief on each business, as far as I read it—the Minister might tell me I'm wrong, and they're going to aggregate businesses up when they're franchised—[Interruption.] Thank you. As I've just been told; other restaurants are available. [Laughter.] If I'd gone through the whole list, I'd be in trouble with the Deputy Presiding Officer. Why does the Government think it's good use of taxpayers' money to support fast food businesses? We don't actually have joined-up thinking at all, do we? Because, quite often, we say, 'We don't support out-of-town shopping, we don't support fast food', and yet, once we come to doing rate relief, 'Yes, we'll help them.'
I take it from the announcement that large hotels in Wales will also get rate relief. This rate relief will help businesses' bottom lines, but I remain unconvinced that it will aid the Welsh economy. The Scottish no longer provide this support; England does. This money could be better used to pay public sector workers; I'd prioritise them over fast food and hotel businesses. And I think that's one of the things—everybody has talked about spending money; I've talked about trying to get some money to spend.
The Farmers Union of Wales has asked that basic farm payments are capped at £15,000 per year. I've heard no argument against this capping of basic farm payments. This is a Brexit dividend—following leaving the European Union, we don't have to pay them anything. I'm in total agreement with the Farmers Union of Wales regarding basic farm payments: they suggest we provide support to the small farmers in Wales, but cap payments to the larger and more profitable farms.
Overall, I welcome the Welsh Labour Government's spending plans, which will help to protect public services and the most vulnerable in the face of a perfect storm of financial pressures. Ministers have taken difficult decisions to reprioritise funding from within budgets to maximise support for public services and people and businesses most affected by the cost-of-living crisis and recession. The budget also allocates extra money for the NHS, councils, education. I have previously asked for EMA to be expanded and EMA to be increased; that's not a large sum of money, but it would make a big difference to many poor people. And Wales needs to prioritise research and development for economic sustainability, to support innovation in Welsh universities. I've also continued to call for an uplift in equality-related money that comes directly from the UK Government consequential to ensure that it matches spending in England. University research is crucial to developing the Welsh economy. I'll be supporting the budget, but hope that, next year, we'll look at rates support and basic farm payments to give us extra money.

Laura Anne Jones.

Laura Anne Jones AC: Thank you. I think I wasn't down to speak, but I will speak, because I think it's very important that I do speak on education. I can't believe that Plaid Cymru just stood up and said that they were going to support a budget that is, in real terms, cutting education—cutting education by £6.5 million in real terms. That is disgraceful. This Government has a missed opportunity with this budget. It has missed an opportunity to reverse the damage that's been inflicted on the children of Wales for the last 23 years. You have done everything that you shouldn't do in terms of education, when you should be concentrating on getting the basics right, rather than concentrating on headline-grabbing stuff. This Labour Government here has not just—[Interruption.] It hasn't just neglected Welsh education, it has effectively harmed it by cutting this in real terms. Would the Minister agree with me that, unlike what the First Minister said earlier, being at the bottom end of the PISA table for the last two decades is no good reflection on Wales's state of education, and, in fact, we need to get those basics right. It's absolutely imperative; it's nothing to be proud of that we've improved just a little bit on those few areas of PISA. We should be near the top; we should be the top of the UK. We should have a vision here that's laid out, where you increase the education budget, ensuring that we get those basics right, ensuring that we deliver the best education in Wales, and, quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for this budget.

Heledd Fychan AS: I have to say, I don't want to stand up and absolve Welsh Government of responsibility here, but I do find it quite galling to hear the Conservatives talk about, 'What about the children of Wales?' when, actually, it's Tory austerity enforcing policies on people here in Wales, not giving Wales the fair share it deserves, lying about the Brexit dividend that would come to Wales that never materialised and is letting our communities get poorer. That's the reality, and you have to take responsibility for that as well. You cannot absolve responsibility. But one of the things we've had through our e-mails from many people has been from People's Assembly Wales, asking us, as Labour and Plaid Cymru politicians, not to vote in favour of this budget, because it would be implementing austerity here in Wales. They're asking why we're not out on the streets, united, to ensure that Wales gets what it needs and deserves, because the reality is that we are being let down by consecutive UK Governments, and it's making the situation impossible.
I'm also fed up of hearing people stand up in this Chamber and say, 'We would do this, if we had the money, or if we had the powers here in Wales', but not fighting for greater powers. And actually, we do support independence because we believe that we should be taking those difficult decisions here in Wales, rather than just pointing towards the UK Government.

Darren Millar AC: Will you take an intervention?

Heledd Fychan AS: Yes. I've stopped speaking.

Darren Millar AC: Is that okay, Deputy Presiding Officer?

[Inaudible.]

Darren Millar AC: You talk very passionately about independence, as, of course, all members of Plaid Cymru do, but do you accept that the fiscal gap means that you'd either have to raise taxes significantly or cut public spending significantly, which would have an enormously damaging impact on Wales and its people?

Heledd Fychan AS: The most damaging impact has been Conservatives in the UK Government not standing up for Wales, and I believe in Wales and I believe in the future of Wales, and I do not accept that. We have seen evidence from different researchers showing that that is not the case, and also we have seen that we were told that all this money would come in to Wales that never materialised post Brexit. So, I don't accept that.
One of the things, if I focus on the Welsh Government's actual budget today—. I am pleased that we're working in co-operation, as has been outlined by Llyr. I'm not going to apologise for the fact that more children are benefiting from free school meals because we're co-operating. I'm not going to apologise for the fact that families are benefiting from free childcare. There are so many things that we've been able to co-operate on that have made a difference to the lives of people in our communities now—not in the future, but now: money in people's pockets now; food in children's stomachs now. But one of the things that I am pleased that we have at least agreed in terms of prioritised areas has been in terms of increasing the education maintenance allowance, extending eligibility for free school meals to secondary school and, of course, extending the bus emergency scheme. And I think we do need, all, to be united across this Chamber, to be fighting for that additional funding to make that a reality here in Wales.
A key issue of concern in this budget for a number of my constituents has been the end of the bus emergency scheme, and this is despite assurances being given that funding would remain unchanged, which was corroborated by ministerial evidence submitted on the draft budget, but we now know that that won't be the case. As a result, the future of many bus routes in my region and beyond are now in jeopardy, meaning people are worried about how they will access essential services, as well as employment opportunities, especially in those areas of my region where buses are the only transport option and where car ownership is low. I do think we really do need to prioritise this and see how we are going to support people living in our community now.
In terms of what has been secured, I'm really pleased, in terms of the Welsh language funding, to see the additional £1 million of revenue for next year, and also free entry to the Urdd Eisteddfod for low-income families. I'm really pleased to see that. But, obviously, one of the key concerns, if I look at the portfolio areas in terms of culture and sport, Llyr Gruffydd mentioned in terms of the importance of the preventative agenda, what we're hearing now is that because of increased costs we are going to see, perhaps, swimming pools close, sports facilities close, arts centres close—all of those that are so essential in terms of the health and well-being agenda. I see in this budget many areas that are still operating in silos when we have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. As we work for future areas and years through this Senedd term, I think we do need to look at that holistic approach to ensure that we are providing the best possible start to everybody and ensuring that opportunities such as those with culture and sport aren't taken away from those that desperately need them.

Jane Dodds AS: Well, I'm also stunned by the Welsh Conservatives, and here are some quick reminders: a £20 cut in universal credit from the Conservative Government. That's—[Interruption.] That's a £20 cut every week to the poorest people.
Peter Fox talked about Welsh ambulances queuing outside of hospitals. I actually don't think England is doing much better at all when it comes to queues of ambulances outside of English hospitals.
Brexit: one of the biggest disasters to Wales. You heard this afternoon about the cuts to our Welsh ports: £1 billion in EU funding has been lost, which the Conservatives in Westminster actually promised to replace in full—[Interruption.] I will in one minute, if I may, Andrew. I'll just finish this bit. The Westminster Government promised to replace that in full. And fair funding from HS2. So, let's be clear—and I look forward to hearing from the leader of the Welsh Conservatives—Wales has been sold totally short by the Welsh Conservatives. There's a lead-in for you.

Andrew RT Davies AC: Wales hasn't been sold short; £2.5 billion extra in this comprehensive spending review available to the Welsh Government. But you've spent your time going around mid Wales telling Welsh sheep farmers that their markets would collapse. Last year, they went up by 17 per cent—17 per cent. There's no-one more misleading in this Chamber or in this country than a Liberal Democrat.

Jane Dodds AS: How wonderful to hear you refer to the Welsh Liberal Democrats. We barely get a mention, so it's really good to hear you talk about the Welsh Liberal Democrats.
I'm not going to talk about the specifics around what you have done, what you have done to Welsh farmers. You have sold them down the river with a deal with New Zealand and Australia, which is about importing lamb at a much lower standard and a much lower level. You should be ashamed of that, and I'm sure you will be considering your position—[Interruption.]
NVZs. Sorry, I do get an interruption, and I cannot let that go by. NVZs: I think you'll find that I voted to ensure that the Welsh Government looked at water pollution levels, so please don't throw that at me.
So, can I just move on to my contribution, if I may, Dirprwy Lywydd? I want to talk about some specific points. Dentistry: I'm really pleased, thank you—[Interruption.]

Can Members allow the Member for Mid and West Wales to actually conclude, please, by being quiet?

Jane Dodds AS: Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I was shouting, then, and I didn't need to, I realise.
I want to just talk about dentistry. Thank you so much for the work you've been doing. I'm really pleased that we are seeing an increase in dentist provision in rural areas. I know that we are looking at mobile dentistry, and we're looking at those dentists as well being in schools, secondary schools, so I'm really pleased that that is happening and I'm grateful, as well, for the additional funding for a dentist in Llandrindod Wells. We need to obviously protect our NHS dentistry and to grow it and to make sure that it's preserved. NHS dentistry should not just be for the poorest, but it should be for everybody, and in fact, we all know—. We've all got mailbags full of people who cannot access an NHS dentist.
We've heard about public transport and the concerns about removing the emergency funding scheme and the loss of services that this could imply. I want to see free public transport for all under 25-year-olds.
Housing: I am disappointed, along with Plaid Cymru, at the lack of an increase in the housing support grants. With costs having risen more than 10 per cent over the past year, this decision will inevitably mean a cut in services to support tenants.
I do agree with Plaid Cymru that there does need to be a debate and a discussion about how we get in more income to the Welsh Government, and actually looking at our Welsh rates of income tax. I know that will be for another year, but it is so important that we balance what we're spending with what we can get in through the front door as well.
I finish by saying that I'm really pleased that the Welsh Government has been prioritising social justice and equality issues. We've seen an increase in the discretionary assistance fund, and I'm really pleased to see that. I'm delighted that the universal basic income scheme for care-experienced young people continues—that is, that our care-experienced young people have the best possible start in life. And I'm really pleased to see other Welsh benefits also being rolled out.
But that is—and I go back to my earlier point—sadly, needed because we are looking at a complete outweighing of what we're getting from the Welsh Conservatives via their colleagues in Westminster. So, I will be supporting this budget. I hope that Wales can really move forward. Wales is an amazing country that has a really prosperous future, and I hope that we will continue to deliver. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Jenny Rathbone AC: I agree with what Jane Dodds was saying about the importance of the discretionary assistance fund and also the amount of money to be paid to care leavers. We've been able to get through this winter, just about. We have to remind ourselves that about one third of all households have been juggling with heating or eating. So, we've managed to get through this winter, but next winter is likely to become much more challenging, partly because we have less money to play with. The idea that this isn't a real-terms cut in the amount of money that the Welsh Government has available is for the birds—£1.4 billion is a really significant sum of money.
But looking at how we are going to support people going forward, we have to look at the efficiency with which we can ensure that support gets to those who most need it. To them that have shall always be given. Everybody has had £400 in their energy account if they have a traditional pay-as-you-go meter. Only less than three quarters of households on pre-payment meters have received that £400, and that is because some pre-payment suppliers to households chose to deliver that money in vouchers, by text, by post, or e-mail, which may or may not have arrived, or they can automatically ensure that the households get it when they sign up at their usual top-up point. I think it would be really useful to ensure that we get the UK Government to analyse which is the most effective way of doing things, because we've all heard stories of people who simply haven't received their vouchers. But it's really, really important that everybody does get the money who is entitled to get it.
I think that one of the reasons that the uptake in Wales is higher than in the rest of the UK is because of the work done by the Minister for Social Justice in ensuring that people know about the Welsh fuel payment. But that, once again, has not reached all the households that need it, and we need to ensure that everybody is working to ensure that those most in need get their money. So, I think that it is very significant that some local authorities have made serious efforts to ensure take-up of the Wales fuel support scheme, with 88 per cent in Flintshire—top of the league table. The lowest is in Ynys Môn: 61 per cent. It's disappointing that Rhun ap Iorwerth is not here to hear that and ensure that he gets them to raise their game. People on top-up meters are mainly social housing tenants, where local authorities hold the information, they can see who is eligible and who is not, and therefore they should be ensuring that people get that money, because that is money that's going to be circulating in the economy when it happens. I find it inexplicable that local authorities aren't on this case because it's going to enrich their local economy, their local shops, their local businesses, and make their lives just a lot easier.
Free school meals. Yes, it's great that we're putting £70 million into free school meals in the next year, I absolutely agree with Llyr Gruffydd, but we should not underestimate the challenge that that is going to be for schools, for local authorities, for suppliers and caterers, because the free school meals initiative cannot be about serving up adulterated, processed food. We have to ensure that we're delivering fresh, nourishing food—

Llyr Gruffydd AC: I'm sure you're not suggesting that that is our policy aim.

Jenny Rathbone AC: No, I'm absolutely not suggesting that that is our policy aim at all. [Laughter.] I'm just saying that unless we keep control of this policy initiative, that is what could happen, because there's no shortage of multinational suppliers who would like to do that.
So, the food security issues, we've all rehearsed recently. There's a shortage of chefs in schools. We are not going to be able to afford this in the long term unless the money that we are investing in school meals is also staying in local economies, with local businesses, rather than the profits being exported.
Lastly, I just want to highlight the challenges we face around buses. I was very reassured to hear the First Minister saying about the work of the Deputy Minister for Climate Change that's going on with the bus companies to ensure that we are going to maintain the bus services as far as we possibly can, because the worst-case scenarios are pretty frightening, and my constituents will simply not be able to get to work or get to visit their friends and families if we don't have the bus services that people without cars absolutely rely on. So, I see I've run out of time. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Gareth Davies AS: It's a pleasure to take part in this debate this afternoon, certainly what I regard to be a significant day in the Welsh political calendar. Whilst the Labour and Plaid project of spending taxpayers' money on expanding the Senedd by arguing it is needed for the future of Wales, the Government is certainly not looking to the future by slashing funding for what is actually needed in the future, and that's our young people and our children. A huge cut to the education budget shows that—and it is a huge cut—the Government thinks they are more important than the children of Wales.
We already know how the Welsh Government will respond to any Conservative criticism of this budget, as shown already, by refusing to take any responsibility and pointing the finger down the M4 to Westminster. But the truth is that it's the Labour Party who choose what to cut, and it's the Labour Party who are leaving Welsh children with a less certain future. Equally, the Welsh Government will say that Westminster has cut their budget, which they have already, which you have said already, and the funding they allocate is the fault of the Conservative Party. Yet, like socialists always are, the Welsh Government is once again unable to prioritise and spend properly because their ideology always comes first.
Spending £12.2 million on socialist vanity projects like the universal basic income. This is not, quote, 'Supporting people in the choices they make', like the Minister for Social Justice has said, but it makes people dependent on the state and their lives dictated by the state. If the Welsh Government truly wanted to support people in the choices they make, it would not see the social care and support budget fall by 14 per cent, as unpaid carers will suffer and have their lives restricted significantly due to their caring responsibilities. It's been acknowledged time and time again that unpaid carers are essential to our care system, as they provide 96 per cent of care in Wales—yes, 96 per cent—yet they are still not getting the recognition they deserve. One in seven unpaid carers are using foodbanks and financial support for them is drying up in this budget.
The Welsh Government have known about the ever-increasing challenges that social care faces as far back as 20 years, to 2003, and the serious issues of an ageing population and delayed discharges from hospital, and they're nothing new. Therefore, I am surprised that the Welsh Government is still not addressing the urgent need to prioritise social care, as I mentioned in the business statement before, certainly in care home provision where care homes aren't operating to capacity simply because of the recruitment and retention issues. Where I welcome the uplift in the real living wage to £10.90, it's also getting the training opportunities right and the career path, because many carers who I speak to, they hit a glass ceiling because where they aspire to progress in their careers, they simply can't because of scant resources, and then they're leaving the profession and going elsewhere and that's the issue we're facing in terms of recruitment and retention of some of the people who make these key changes to people's lives day in, day out. It's also worth remembering that a lot of care workers don't just work nine to five Monday to Friday; they work unsociable hours. They work weekends, nights, evenings—you name it. They work around the clock and do sleep-ins as well—24/7 care. I firmly believe that they don't get the recognition that they need. I'd instruct the Welsh Government to increase their acknowledgement of the changes they make to our most vulnerable people's lives on a daily basis.
And just finally, quickly, with the news of Betsi Cadwaladr going back into special measures, I'd just like the Minister to address, possibly, in responding to the debate, whether that's been factored into this budget and whether there'll be any extra resources for Betsi Cadwaladr going into special measures, and what allocation is being made, given that consideration. Because, as mentioned last week, the people of north Wales, and certainly my constituents, have had enough of a failing health board and they'd like to see reassurances from this Government that they're indeed on their side and that this budget reflects that situation. I'll leave it there. Thank you.

Mabon ap Gwynfor AS: Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate this afternoon. I do acknowledge at the outset that drawing up a budget is a difficult task, and I do sympathise with the Minister. A budget does outline political priorities. This budget, therefore, has to be drawn up in the face of austerity 2.0. Once again, the Conservatives are looking to cut back on state support and force painful financial cuts at a time of significant financial hardship. Of course, it's the vulnerable and disadvantaged who will suffer most as a result of the cuts of the Conservative Government in Westminster. Not only is the Barnett formula failing and means that Wales isn't getting the funding owed to us, but the necessary capital funding is being denied to us as a result of projects such as HS2. Therefore, the budgetary envelope that should come to Wales is smaller than it should be. The truth is that austerity is a political choice. A state with financial sovereignty and a central bank doesn't have to force austerity on its people; it's a political choice to do so in order to keep the rich rich. And trying to compare a state budget with a personal budget—the household income—is utter nonsense, which either shows a lack of economic understanding or is a deliberate lie on behalf of the Conservatives.
To go to the details of this budget, it's no surprise for many of you that I will stand here today to talk about an issue that I'm passionate about, namely housing. I've had a number of conversations with the sector and I've identified a number of priorities for short, medium and long-term needs. There is much that needs to be funded, but in prioritising these things, we will see that we need to increase the housing support grant, introduce a support programme for people at risk of losing their homes, a comprehensive package for the social housing sector so that they can reach the necessary standards in light of the huge increase in inflation and costs, and introduce a package to support people to buy homes. Yhese aren't new ideas from my part. I want to take a moment to recognise the role of previous Ministers, particularly Jocelyn Davies and Ieuan Wyn Jones, who developed policies that are not dissimilar when Wales was at the centre of a financial crisis back in 2008. The work of Jocelyn Davies and Ieuan Wyn Jones meant that thousands of people had been able to remain in their homes, avoiding homelessness. The valuable lessons from that time have been learned and adopted this year, and this is clear in the £40 million over two years in order to ensure that people can remain in their homes during this cost-of-living crisis, which follows directly from the work of Jocelyn.
It's clear that the work of Plaid Cymru in the co-operation agreement is seen here, and I'm pleased to see our priority of tackling the long-term housing crisis being prioritised. Seeing £63 million in addition provided to the support-to-buy scheme is going to make a significant difference, meaning that young families can afford homes in their communities in Dwyfor or the Vale of Glamorgan and every other community in Wales. Further to that, the £59 million over two years for the social housing sector, to enable them to meet environmental targets and to increase standards in the housing sector, is something that I warmly welcome. But the cost-of-living crisis is having an impact on people today, and I don't need to point out the fact that we are seeing homelessness increasing, with far more people in temporary accommodation. The services trying to tackle this particular crisis are creaking, with homelessness staff having trouble in making ends meet. So, it is a huge disappointment to see that there hasn't been an increase in the budget for the housing support grant. As things stand, it is certain that we will see these services shrinking, and the result will be seeing more people sleeping on our streets because the crucial service to support them isn't available. That is a huge disappointment.
I finally want to briefly mention agriculture. The new agriculture Bill is currently going through the Senedd, with Stage 2 upon us. The Bill is—[Inaudible.]—and the current environmental climate is a central part of this. Because of this, farmers will have to adapt some practices in a very brief period of time, so it's also disappointing that no capital budget has been allocated to enable our farmers to make these changes in the brief time that we have available. Thank you.

Rhianon Passmore AC: I also welcome the final budget brought by the Welsh Government after much scrutiny and much collaboration, and I thank the Minister, Rebecca Evans. But after a decade of austerity, Brexit and the COVID pandemic, the economy and public services have never been in a more fragile state throughout the United Kingdom. In my view, Britain is breaking. Fundamentally, the Tory UK Government has not provided Wales with adequate funding. The roof does not cover the house and the cloak does not cover the person. And even after some additional funding in the autumn statement, it is not even enough to meet the inflationary pressures Wales is facing, let alone all our priorities in 2023. [Interruption.] No, I'm not going to take an intervention at this stage.
This is due to a fundamental disregard for Wales. It is a fundamental disregard of UK Government incompetence, a starvation of investment—[Interruption.] No, thank you—and UK economic and fiscal mismanagement. I would like you to listen. [Interruption.] In real terms—[Interruption.] I would like you to listen. In real terms, the Welsh Government's capital budget will be cut to 8.1 per cent lower in 2024-25 than in the current year. The UK Government has comprehensively failed to invest in Welsh infrastructure, and it has not met Welsh needs. And as the UK is entering recession, the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that gross domestic product will fall by 2 per cent, and unemployment will rise by 1.5 points. And the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Bank of England are deeply concerned.
The Tory UK Government's mismanagement of the UK economy has had a profound impact on the UK and a profound impact on the people of Wales. This is without future ongoing pressures from 1 April—energy prices rising again, mortgages rising again, and food and fuel rises. Indeed, we have seen in the last week, from leaked WhatsApp messages from Matt Hancock, Boris Johnson even trying to nominate his own father for a knighthood. The Tory running of Britain has damaged many and privileged a few, and in the midst of this mayhem the Welsh Government continues to defend the interests of the people of Wales, as is shown in this budget, which still progresses the Welsh people's priorities. I commend this budget to Wales, and I commend this budget to the Senedd.

Mark Isherwood AC: This budget is littered with false economies that will push many more people into crisis, adding multi millions to the cost of crisis service providers in the health and social care public sectors. Funding for social justice has been cut by £96 million in absolute terms, and £119 million in real terms. Violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence is facing a real-terms cut of 6.4 per cent, despite the Minister stating that the Welsh Government were mindful of the fact that the cost-of-living crisis is having an impact on the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence specialist sector.
The Welsh Government claims it is increasing its focus on the housing support grant, yet funding is flatlining and represents a real-terms cut of 8 per cent. This is more than concerning. Of course, Labour Welsh Governments have form for this, where their statist approach rejects the reality that non-state providers can reach the parts of societythat the public sector never can. Speaking here in 2016 in support of Community Housing Cymru and Cymorth Cymru’s Let’s Keep On Supporting People campaign for 2017-18, I called for the housing support grant’s predecessor Supporting People programme to be protected from cuts, and emphasised the need to also safeguard the homelessness prevention budget and the housing transition fund, which, like the Supporting People programme, saved money. As I then stated,
'The Supporting People programme is conservatively estimated to save £2.30 for every £1 spent, whilst also levering in other funding, preventing homelessness, preventing spending on health and social care, and increasing community safety, minimising the need for high-cost interventions and reducing avoidable pressure on statutory services.'
Speaking in 2017 as co-sponsor at Cymorth Cymru and Community Housing Cymru’s campaign rally for the Supporting People programme—a programme that prevents homelessness and then supported over 60,000 marginalised and at-risk people in Wales to live independently in their own homes and with dignity in their community—I stated that over 750,000 lives had been transformed since its inception in 2004, providing an essential preventative service that makes a real difference to the lives of those who benefit from it, increasing their resilience and their ability to maintain a secure home, as well as reducing their demand on health and social services. I said that Supporting People interventions reduce use of accident and emergency and GP surgeries, meaning fewer resources used and greater availability of services for the general population. Speaking here three weeks ago during the debate on the draft budget I stated that
'cuts or freezes in the housing support grant have been offered almost as a sacrificial offering in almost every Welsh Government draft budget for at least the last decade, despite the consequences of increased pressures on the NHS, accident and emergency departments, and blue light services’
and
'the Welsh Government should not be pursuing these false economies, and instead should be removing the millions of added cost pressure on statutory services that they would cause'.
As the chief officer of Gorwel, which works within four counties in north Wales, stated to me in a letter:
'We and our partner organisations need the Welsh Government to reconsider the decision within the draft budget to freeze the Housing Support Grant, because what we are seeing on the ground is unprecedented'.
He went on to state:
'official statistics show that there are over 8,500 people in temporary accommodation in Wales and this figure is growing by around 500 every month. At the same time, the draft budget will put the funding for services in real terms at £18 million less than it was in 2012.’
As Cymorth Cymru—

Joyce Watson AC: Will you take an intervention?

Mark Isherwood AC: I’ll have one intervention if time permits, yes.

Joyce Watson AC: I just wondered, within those figures, and that meeting that you had with the housing association, whether they mentioned the disastrous budget that has increased people’s mortgages by up to £600 a month, by Liz Truss’s ideologically driven budget that people are still suffering the consequences of. They must surely have mentioned that.

Mark Isherwood AC: Actually, they did not, but that disastrous and temporary intervention, which we opposed—and I didn’t vote for her—was dealt with. It’s history. The successor Government has moved on. [Interruption.] This is about the Welsh Government budget.

I ask Members to let the Member for North Wales continue his contribution, and that he can do so in his normal tones, without having to shout because there is too much noise in the Chamber.

Mark Isherwood AC: Thank you. As Cymorth Cymru now state, homelessness and housing support providers and local authority commissioners have been left devastated by the lack of an increase in the housing support grant, ninety-three per cent of service providers are extremely or very concerned about their ability to continue delivering services, and services will need to be cut if there’s no increase in the housing support grant.
My question for the Welsh Government is therefore why are you still pursuing these false economies, which see key early intervention and prevention services delivered by the voluntary sector starved of funding, adding millions to the cost pressure on statutory services, rather than learning from this, working with the sector truly co-productively to spend the money better, deliver more and actually save more from the Welsh Government’s budget, too. Of course, whenever life doesn’t fit their comfortable theories, it isn’t the theories they doubt, it’s real life, or blaming somebody else. What they are doing by introducing these cuts is regressive, irresponsible and dangerous.

Sioned Williams MS: As Plaid Cymru's spokesperson for equality and social justice, I'd like to support the points made by Jane Dodds on the investment in the DAF and also echo the comments made by Llyr Gruffydd and Heledd Fychan on the importance of the investment in universal free school meals and expansion of free childcare as a result of the co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru. Jenny Rathbone's point on the importance of ensuring that the money that is being spent by the Welsh Government on support is reaching people's pockets quickly and consistently throughout Wales is key, I think, and Plaid Cymru, of course, would like to see a system where that is done on a statutory footing in order to ensure this.

Sioned Williams MS: But, Dirprwy Lywydd, would we need to spend as much on these measures if Wales were free of this unfair and unequal union of nations? Plaid Cymru has been raising concerns about the impact of underinvestment in research and development in Wales for some time, and we heard about that from Mike Hedges. It's disappointing, therefore, to note that this budget, once again, doesn't do much to tackle this deficit. Research and innovation are at the heart of the prosperity of our nation, now and for the future, enabling the crucial work in our universities to have a positive impact on the lives of the citizens of Wales and, indeed, the citizens of the world.
Over the past decade, Wales has had the lowest level of research and development expenditure as a percentage of its gross value added in all of the nations of the UK. A key factor in this is the comparative lack of quality-related, or QR, funding from the Welsh Government to pay for those things that other grants don't include, which then puts at risk the ability of Welsh universities to compete for the research and innovation funding available to them, and the figures demonstrate this clearly.
QR funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales for 2022-23 is £81.7 million, as compared to £1.789 billion allocated by Reserach England for QR funding in the same year. For universities to be able to compete pro rata with England, QR funding should be around £100 million. Universities are suffering from a deficit of £18 million in funding for key infrastructure. It's not a huge amount, but without action from the Welsh Government we will continue to see Wales fall behind as compared to the rest of the UK—something that actually creates problems for our prosperity as a nation and will be detrimental to universities.
It is an important issue and an urgent issue, because EU structural funds have, of course, played a crucial role in research capacity in Wales, and Wales's access to that funding, and what mitigated the impact of underinvestment from domestic sources in the past is about to come to an end. Its impact is already being felt—1,000 researchers facing redundancy, many of them already losing their jobs and many of them having already been forced to leave Wales, taking their expertise with them, even though we heard from the Government just last week how crucial innovation is to Wales.
There was some hope, as a result of the Windsor framework, that discussions could commence as a result of the UK's participation in the Horizon programme, but press reports on the weekend have suggested that Rishi Sunak and his Government in Westminster are doubtful about the value of the programme and the cost of being involved, which makes taking action on the lack of investment by the Welsh Government even more critical.
Alongside this, the total higher education budget will reduce as a result of this budget to £198.653 million in 2023-24, down from £203.513 million in the 2022-23 budget, a development that causes concern, particularly in light of the fact that many vice-chancellors in Wales, including the vice-chancellor of Cardiff University, have stated recently that Welsh universities face an unsustainable financial situation, which is intensified by increasing energy costs and inflation. I would, therefore, like to note our disappointment that research and development and the universities sector aren't adequately supported in this budget, and to draw the Welsh Government's attention to the fact that the current situation in terms ofour post-Brexit scenario,the level of inflation, the state of the economy and the cost-of-living crisis are even more reason for them to take action to maintain the sector and the research and development work that is such an important foundation for the prosperity of our nation and our contribution globally.

Vikki Howells AC: I want to thank Welsh Government for the positive budget that they have brought forward. UK mismanagement and wider economic pressures make this one of the most difficult budgets since devolution. But Welsh Ministers have continued to protect front-line services, continued to provide help to those most affected by the cost-of-living crisis, continued to support our economy through recessionary times. This is a great achievement.
I want to focus today on how Welsh Government is meeting the social care challenge that our nation faces, a challenge that the Welsh NHS Confederation has described as a national emergency—issues that have gotten worse and that are expected to present even greater levels of challenge. The factors causing this situation have been all too well rehearsed, and, equally, its consequences are all too familiar. The absence of a social care pathway is the primary cause of delayed discharge of medically fit patients. One result is fewer hospital beds being available for new admissions. But this also has personal consequences for the patients who can't be discharged and leads to a vicious cycle of poorer outcomes and greater future reliance on those hard-pressed services.
Investment in social care and getting a system that is fit for purpose are essential for timely hospital discharge and to release some of this pressure. So, at this point, it is reassuring to turn to the budget before us and to see a full and frank recognition of the challenges that our social care sector is facing. I am pleased to see that, above and beyond the commitments in the last spending review, the budget contains a commitment to provide an additional £227 million for Welsh councils. This includes funding for schools and social care, which, of course, are the biggest areas of spending for our partners in local government. Not least of all is the direct attempt to challenge some of the issues around recruitment, to ensure that our social care workforce gets the recognition it should—for example, through the commitment and funding to pay social care workers the real living wage.
I was proud to be elected in 2021 on a manifesto that made this a headline commitment, not least of all recognising the tremendous work that social care staff in my constituency of Cynon Valley and elsewhere in Wales did and continue to do during the pandemic: looking after our vulnerable citizens, ensuring that they could stay safely at home, in some cases, providing that sole link to the outside world. Now, the Welsh Government was able, within last year's budget, to provide funding to deliver this, funding that is crucially being maintained for the next financial year, with an allocation of an additional £70 million for the real living wage for social care workers. This is an incredibly important measure for the approximately 91,000 members of the sector's workforce. As Social Care Wales reminds us, 81 per cent of that workforce is female, so, in delivering this commitment, there's also an important step forward in terms of gender equality and eliminating the pay gap.
The NHS Wales Confederation have asked Welsh Government for a fully funded pay rise for social care staff to enable retention and recruitment, but also to change and challenge perceptions. Care work is skilled work, it is skilled employment. To work in social care, you need a wide suite of skills. Improving social care recruitment and retention via increased pay and better terms and conditions would arguably be the single most effective intervention, and I am reassured that this budget is a step forward in delivering this by Welsh Government putting its money where its mouth is in the budget that we are considering today, but also in wider actions that Welsh Ministers are taking, for example, the work that the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership outlined around fair work and the sector in her progress update last week. Diolch.

And the final speaker in this debate before the Minister's response, Alun Davies.

Alun Davies AC: I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Like others this afternoon, I'd like to start by congratulating the Minister on bringing this budget in front of us. I think she opened her remarks this afternoon by saying that it was a difficult budget for difficult times; it sounded like Gordon Brown [Laughter.] But, it's important to be able to set a budget, and, of course, given the interventions that we've heard from the Conservatives this afternoon, it's important to be able to set a budget that doesn't cost the economy £30 billion in 48 days, which I think the Government will also manage to achieve this afternoon.
But I hope, Deputy Presiding Officer, that we're also able, this afternoon, to agree that an hour isn't sufficient time—a point made by my friend, Mike Hedges, who is absolutely right: we do need to have more time to have a more reasoned conversation on these matters, and I hope that we'll be able to do that next year. I hope that, next year, also, we'll be able to look towards a legislative budget to put these matters on a proper statutory footing to enable the Senedd to have far greater control over how the budget operates.
But it's important also that we recognise where we are in having this debate. We are having a budget that is in the shadow of one of the most catastrophic economic episodes of mismanagement that we've seen in the UK economy in any of our lifetimes. The autumn saw an absolutely disastrous mismanagement and miscalculation from the UK Government that costs us all money today. It costs all of us who have mortgages, it costs all of us who work, money in our budgets today, and that will be reflected in our ability to raise funds in the future. But we're also, Deputy Presiding Officer, setting a budget in the shadow of Brexit. We know that Brexit has cost the economy 4 per cent in lost output. We know that that will have an impact on our tax base; we know that that will have an impact on our ability to deliver services for people; we know that that will have an impact on the size and quantum of the budget in the future. So, this is a difficult budget, but it's important—[Interruption.] I will allow that.

Laura Anne Jones AC: Thank you. And whose fault do you think it is that the Welsh Government are cutting the education budget in cash, in real terms? Do you think it's Brexit, or is it a political decision? It's clearly a political decision. You're showing Wales today that the priority of this Labour Government is not to look after the children and young people of Wales.

Alun Davies AC: Deputy Presiding Officer, the Member opposite both intervenes and answers her own intervention. There hardly seems any point in me allowing that to happen.But, I will say to her that I don't think that this Parliament needs lectures from the Conservatives on economic management. I really don't think we need that today. [Interruption.] Well, if you wish to stand—I hear the Member from Aberconwy—who supported Liz Truss, of course—is telling us that we've got some things to learn. I'd be happy to give way to her as well, if she wants to intervene on this matter—. She doesn't; of course she doesn't.
But it's important, Deputy Presiding Officer, that we have a debate on the budget and not just the spending plan, because one of the concerns I have about the debates that we have, and the processes we follow in this place, is that every Member who stands up wants to spend more money in different places, and what we don't do is debate and discuss sufficiently and in sufficient depth how we raise that money. We've had conversations about our tax base; I have serious concerns about how we're able to raise funds in the future. But we also need to have a conversation about the balance of taxation. Now, I hear what's being said about taxation rates, and I support an increase in taxation rates, as it happens, and I support it for ideological as well as practical reasons. I believe in the public sphere; I believe in public responsibility; I believe that the public collectively can do more together for our communities than we can do individually as single individuals and therefore, I believe in taxation in the same way as my friend Mike Hedges does—who I seem to be quoting almost as often as Mark Isherwood quotes himself. [Laughter.]
And I hope that we will be able to look hard at taxation rates in the future, but also to ensure that, in doing so, we ensure that money goes where it is needed. Because one of the concerns that I have, if we do not have sufficient funds available in the public sphere, is that those people who will be most dearly affected, most harshly affected, by reductions, are the poorest people, whether those people live in poor communities or live in relatively wealthy communities, because when you cut public services, the people who suffer disproportionately are people who rely on public services to a greater degree, and that is almost always the poorest people in our society.
And at the same time, if we move taxation or the weight of taxation from a progressive taxation such as income tax to a regressive taxation such as council tax, what happens again is that poor people pay proportionately more, and poor people who live in poorer areas pay proportionately more again, and those local authorities who represent poorer areas are less able to fund services, which again hits poorer people harder and more harshly than those people who are relatively well off.
I won't test your patience any more, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I will say this: what I hope we'll be able to do is have a debate on the future of the Welsh budget that is a richer debate in the future, that enables us to actually debate a budget and not just a spending plan. And I will commend the Welsh Government in closing, because the level of information and analysis that we get from the Welsh Government today is far greater and far more important to our debates than it was, say, a decade ago. And I think that we should recognise the work that the Welsh Government is doing on informing and enabling us to have the sort of debate that we need to have. But I hope that, as we move through this budget round and into next year's budget round, we will be able to collectively agree that we need to have a different sort of debate and a debate that is a far more fundamental debate about how we raise and spend money on behalf of the people of this country.

I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to reply to the debate. Rebecca Evans.

Rebecca Evans AC: Diolch, and thank you to colleagues for their contributions in the debate this afternoon. I'll begin by just responding to some of the comments made by the Chair of the Finance Committee in his remarks, which opened the debate this afternoon. One was, really, around how the Welsh Government engages with the committee in terms of providing information and so on, and I'm very happy to continue those discussions, which we're about to start, I think, in terms of how we can potentially improve the budget business protocol in future years. And I'm sure that we'll be bearing in mind the comments that colleagues have been making in the Chamber this afternoon. And I know that the Finance Committee has also found the technical briefings with the chief economist, for example, very helpful, and again I'm happy to continue with those, and also with an early evidence-giving session to the committee in those years when we do find ourselves—or circumstances when we find ourselves—in situations where the UK Government's autumn budget comes at a time that makes scrutiny more difficult than it should be in this Senedd. So, working together, I think, to improve these things I think will be very helpful in future.
The only recommendation that I wasn't able to agree to that the Finance Committee made was around the amount of information provided, asking that it should have been comparable with that set out in the spending review of 2021. And the reason that I couldn't accept that sole recommendation was because this budget is a single-year budget and it should be read alongside the three-year spending review budget documentation, which we published last year. Some of those things won't have changed. For example, the distributional analysis, which we undertook last year, wouldn't have really changed in any meaningful way this year. And in any case, the only data that we could have done that piece of work on was the last year's data, which is the most up to date set. So, there were good reasons in terms of not being able to accept the committee's recommendation there, but all of the others were accepted in full or in principle.
Deputy Presiding Officer, there have been epic amounts of brass neck on the Conservative benches on display this afternoon. I think that colleagues on those benches have just completely ignored or forgotten the fact that our Welsh Government budget next year, or in the next financial year, will be worth over £1 billion less than we understood it would be at the time of the spending review. So, we shouldn't give any credence to the Conservatives who are up in arms when you see real-terms decreases to various budgets. [Interruption.] And I think I will come on to the point the Member will raise shortly, and, if I don't, I'll take an intervention after that.
We haven't discussed capital much in the Chamber this afternoon. The reason for that is that we didn't have a single extra penny of capital in the spending review last autumn, and that means our budget next year will be 8.1 per cent less in terms of capital. And that is, of course, the money that we need to be investing as we continue our journey out of the pandemic and the kind of money that we need to be creating good jobs and green investment here in Wales.
But what I have done in the budget is listen very carefully to my colleagues on the Labour benches, and we've heard some of these really strong arguments this afternoon—from Jenny Rathbone, Mike Hedges, Rhianon Passmore, Vikki Howells and Alun Davies—about why we should be continuing to focus our efforts on the most vulnerable people and on protecting businesses in Wales and our public services, and that's why you'll see an extra £227 million for local government. And that, of course, includes funding for schools and social care. And the Conservatives are entirely disingenuous when they suggest that funding has been cut for schools. We've passed on every penny of the £117 million additional consequential funding we had in respect of education to local government and, on top of that, added funding to the education department in Wales. And if the Conservative education spokesperson speaks to local government leaders, as I do, they will be keen to tell her that they are investing more in education than they received in respect of that £117 million consequential funding.

Laura Anne Jones AC: Will the Minister acknowledge that there is a real-terms and cash cut in education in your budget this year? And will you also acknowledge that, with you putting the money that is designated for education not solely into the education budget but putting it into local government, there is absolutely no guarantee, even though you say that local government leaders say that they have good intentions, that that money will go into education?

Rebecca Evans AC: Well, we fund education differently here in Wales, because we trust local government here in Wales to do the right thing by their schools, and, as I've said, local government is passing that money on to schools and then some, so I think that the characterisation that we're seeing on the Conservative benches is inaccurate and unfair.
We've also provided an additional £165 million for NHS Wales to help protect front-line services, and an additional £40 million for public transport, and I have heard the important points that colleagues have been making in respect of public transport. But I would also point to the fact that, over the next two years, we'll be providing in excess of £0.75 billion of revenue funding to support public transport provision across Wales, so this is clearly an area of significant interest and commitment from us.
And then you'll also see the additional funding for the discretionary assistance fund and the other forms of support that we're providing to those who most need it. So, I'm really proud of the budget that we are tabling today, and I do want to put on record my thanks to Plaid Cymru. Plaid Cymru Members have quite rightly highlighted some of the areas where we've worked in partnership, through our co-operation agreement, to provide additional funding—for example, the additional £10 million revenue in 2023-24 and 2024-25 towards expanding free childcare to all two-year-olds and the work that we will be doing together to monitor that. And of course there's additional funding to take forward some of the joint work that we're doing in respect of promoting the purchasing of Welsh-made goods and services. Again, this is part of our co-operation agreement, as is the additional funding to explore how the establishment of a national school for government might contribute to a step change in embedding the idea behind the one Welsh public service that drives us forward here in Wales.
I just want to put on record, I think, those important pieces of work that we'll be doing together, and of course to thank Jane Dodds as well for the discussions that we've had ahead of the budget today. I know that those have revolved a lot around the academy model, which provides the general dental service capacity, and that's linked with the education and training facilities. You see a really good example of that in north Wales; the North Wales Dental Academy has brought together community service, general dental service and education in a single location, and we'll be exploring how we can go about investing in more of these services in different areas of Wales to improve access to dentistry, and we look forward to continuing with those discussions as well.
So, in summary, as has been acknowledged by many, there are many challenges that remain. It has been a difficult budget to deliver, and the reality is that we haven't been able to meet all of the challenges that colleagues have quite rightly drawn attention to today. Despite this, I am confident that our budget does maximise the funding that is available to us, balancing those short-term needs against our longer term change agenda and committing to deliver on our programme for government ambitions.
I think I'll just take this last moment, with your indulgence, just to thank our very, very talented and committed officials, who have supported the development of the budget—I know that they have gone above and beyond to support the work—and also just to thank everybody who has provided evidence to committees and to ourselves as well. I think that this is a really good example of what we can do if we work together, and I look forward to the vote later on this afternoon.

Thank you, Minister. As voting on the Wales rates of income tax 2023-24 has been deferred until voting time, I will defer the vote on the final budget for 2023-24 until voting time as well, in accordance with Standing Order 20.29A.

Voting deferred until voting time.

5. Debate: The Local Government Settlement 2023-24

So, we move on now to item 5, which is a debate on the local government settlement for 2023-24, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.

Motion NDM8214 Lesley Griffiths
To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Section 84H of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, approves the Local Government Finance Report (No. 1) 2023-24 (Final Settlement—Councils), which was laid in the Table Office on 28 February 2023.

Motion moved.

Rebecca Evans AC: Diolch. Today I'm presenting to the Senedd for its approval the 2023-24 local government settlement for the 22 unitary authorities in Wales. First, I'd like to record my thanks to local government, both elected members and staff across local government services, for the critical work that they do for communities, people and businesses across Wales. It's been an incredibly busy number of years now for local government, from floods to the pandemic to the way in which they're responding to the cost-of-living crisis, and of course meeting the needs of those people who are fleeing the war in Ukraine. And I know that you'll all want to join me in thanking them for their hard work and dedication.
In preparing for the Welsh budget and this settlement, we've engaged closely with local government throughout, and I'm grateful to local government for the way in which those discussions have been held. This year, I'm pleased to propose to the Senedd a settlement for 2023-24 that is 7.9 per cent higher than in the current financial year on a like-for-like basis. This equates to an increase of £403 million over 2022-23, with the smallest local authority increase, of 6.5 per cent, being higher than the vast majority of increases for authorities in prior settlements for a number of years. In 2023-24, local authorities in Wales will receive £5.5 billion in general revenue allocations from core funding and non-domestic rates. For 2024-25, the indicative Wales-level, core-revenue funding allocation is £5.69 billion, an uplift of £169 million or 3.1 per cent. This figure is dependent on both our current estimates of NDR income and any 2024-25 UK budgets. This settlement, therefore, provides local authorities with a stable platform on which to plan their budgets for both this coming financial year and next year. In setting the level of the core funding for local government, I responded as far as I can to the impacts of inflation, including on pay for hard-working staff. In particular, I've included funding to enable local authorities to meet our real living wage for social care commitment as well as the increased costs of teachers' pay. In any other year, I would be stressing that this is a good settlement for local government, building as it does on the increase of 9.4 per cent for 2022-23. But we cannot ignore the impact of the continuing high rates of inflation, and those are, of course, continuing to have a big impact on local authority costs.
In addition to the core unhypothecated funding delivered through this settlement, I've provided indicative information on revenue and capital grants planned for 2023-24. These currently amount to over £1.4 billion for revenue and nearly £1 billion for capital for our shared priorities with local government. General capital funding for local government for 2023-24 will be set at £200 million and will be unchanged for the following year, including £200 million in each year to enable authorities to respond to our joint priority of decarbonisation, and I ask the Members to support the motion.

Sam Rowlands MS: Thank you, Minister, and Welsh Government also for bringing forward today's debate on the 2023-24 local government settlement, which, of course, councils and councillors up and down Wales have been eagerly awaiting, because we know this local government settlement is crucially important for our councils and councillors, who do so much in providing the public services that our local communities rely on, and this is why it's so crucial that our fantastic councils are funded sufficiently to enable them to deliver these vitally important services. And Minister, I certainly join you in your opening comment in recognising the outstanding work delivered by many of our councils, especially over recent times.
I'd firstly like to say also, on this side of the benches, we certainly welcome that there is an increase to the local government settlement, and the 7.9 per cent. It will make a difference for those local authorities. And I've heard in evidence in the Local Government and Housing Committee and from a number of council leaders that this is perhaps more than anticipated a few months ago. I was also pleased, Minister, to see that population data from the 2021 census has been able to be used in the funding formula allocations for the next financial year as well. As you know, it's something I've raised a number of times, in terms of the use of data, so I'm pleased to see that it is being refreshed. Certainly, a concern continues to be, though, that some of those other data points aren't able to be refreshed at the moment, but I also understand that progress is being made to see how this data can be improved as soon as possible.
But, Minister, there are concerns within the local government settlement, which aren't being dealt with, I believe, sufficiently at the moment, and therefore will not enable us to support your motion here today. The first concern from my side and from our side of the benches is a link between these continued council tax rises and the levels of reserves that local authorities are holding. So, you will know that councils in Wales at the moment are currently holding over £2.5 billion-worth of useable reserves. What we're not seeing is councils seeking to use those and keep council tax at a sensible level. So, for example, in Caerphilly, there's a 7.9 per cent council tax rise, but they have £233 million in useable reserves; we see in Carmarthenshire County Council residents are going to be paying a further 6.8 per cent increase in council tax, but the council there has £230 million in useable reserves; we understand that Rhondda Cynon Taf has over £250 million in useable reserves. I certainly acknowledge, Minister, that those reserves may not want to be used for day-to-day spend, but there must be ways in which those councils, working with you in Government, can see how best to ensure that those reserves are not being sat on, but are being used to support those communities and keep the pressure on our hard-working local taxpayers as minimal as possible.
These points, in my view, certainly lead to the second issue on the local government settlement, which is the funding formula that you're using to allocate funding to local authorities, which I believe needs to be reviewed. I'm sure you'd agree with me, Minister, and with many residents from across Wales, that it simply can't be right that we see councils sitting on these huge reserves while council tax rises continue to go against people who are certainly working through the cost-of-living challenge.
I find it puzzling that some councils are able to only increase council tax by, say, 1 per cent this next financial year while other councils are having to raise it by nearly 10 per cent. Surely that points to a discrepancy in the funding formula, where one council is able to raise it by 1 per cent while other councils have to raise it by nearly 10 per cent. Something cannot be right in a funding formula that forces councils to have a 10-times difference in the percentage of council tax that they're looking to increase by. As you'll know, Minister, more and more council leaders from across Wales are joining calls for the funding formula to be reviewed, and I'll be interested to hear from you as to how satisfied you are with the fairness of the current funding formula and what discussions you may or may not be having with the Welsh Local Government Association as to how that funding formula can be reviewed in the future as well.
A final concern on this, with the local government settlement, and its impact on councils, Minister, is the housing support grant, which has already been mentioned in this Chamber this afternoon and is something that I've raised in the past as well. You will know that homelessness and housing support services, who went above and beyond during the pandemic, are facing a 10 per cent increase in costs through the next financial year, and along with this around 30 per cent of housing support staff are currently paid below the national living wage and real living wage— wages that your Government is committing to ensuring the public sector are paid, but is not now enabling others to receive the same types of pay.
As we know, over the past decade, the housing support grant has been reduced in real terms by £14 million, and this is during a time of increased demand and pressure—demand and pressure our councils are facing in terms of housing and homelessness more than ever. Fifty-six per cent of staff working in the sector say they're struggling to pay their bills, with some describing the situation as 'horrendous'. So, I would call on you to urgently rectify the situation, Minister. I'm disappointed this settlement will not enable councils and councillors to pay and provide that funding to those housing support services sufficiently enough.
To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, on this side of the benches, we continue to regret the unfair nature of the local government settlement and the funding formula in particular, along with the key areas that I've identified here today. So, in light of this, we will be voting against this motion. Thank you.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Saying that it is a very difficult and challenging situation for local authorities is a serious understatement, I would think, and the Minister referred earlier to the current 12-month settlement—9.4 per cent. Twelve months ago, it was announced by the Minister, much better at the time than anyone had imagined, to be fair, but, of course, there was a recognition at that time that years 2 and 3 would be challenging. Of course, in the meantime, we've seen what's happened to inflation and it has shown that settlement in a very different light by now. And yet again, this year, 7.9 per cent, many would say is better than expected, but we are in a very, very, very different context. There is a background of 12 years of cuts, meaning that there is no slack left for local authorities to make cuts—nothing left other than to make cuts to the bone—and nobody would underappreciate the very difficult decisions that local authorities have to make across the country.
The Welsh Government evidently is framing this as a positive settlement and in the context that we find ourselves in, there's something in that, perhaps, but the reality of the situation tells a possibly more challenging story, because the funding gap does mean that not only are we going to see an increase in taxes, as has been referred to, at very significant levels, but, at the same time, we're going to see extreme levels of cuts in certain situations. So, it doesn't look like a very prosperous situation. And this is coming at a time when people are less able to pay a council tax that will have increased significantly, but also when those services that will be cut will be needed more than ever.
The settlement of every local authority is lower than inflation, so I think that tells its own story, and every indication from the UK Government does suggest that austerity 2.0 will continue, and might intensify, and so the situation could be exacerbated before it gets better. And there is great pressure from several directions on local authority budgets. We know about social care in the context of children and adults, which is a great burden. There is a duty, in that sense, on the Senedd to help local authorities as much as we can, not only financially, but in terms of tackling some of the systemic problems that exist in the relationship, particularly between social care and health. And, of course, there is work happening in that context, and it's important that that work does progress urgently.
There is pressure on housing and homelessness budgets, with waiting lists increasing. I've heard, for example, that the Wrexham waiting lists have doubled to 4,000 just in the last two years, but, of course, the resources available to the local authorities aren't close to being adequate to respond to that challenge. And the blow that the Welsh Government is receiving in terms of capital budgets is evidently going to have an impact on the capital budgets available to local authorities. That's going to place more pressure on them to borrow, and we know what's happening to interest rates. The Public Works Loan Board is 4.2 per cent now, I think, for a one-year loan, whereas two years ago it was just 1 per cent. So, these challenges that local authorities are facing are coming from every direction that you can imagine.
So, the important message from me, in looking at the broader settlement, is flexibility. I do feel that we do need to ensure that local authorities have the greatest flexibility possible to respond. In a period of austerity, local authorities know how best to make the best use of the scarce resources that they have. So, empowering local authorities instead of being too restrictive in terms of how those scarce resources can be used.

Mike Hedges AC: You know how important I believe local government is, and you've heard me talk for the best part of 12 years now about the importance of local government, the importance of supporting local government. I'm not going to say anything different to that today.
I welcome the Minister's intention of setting local government core revenue funding for 2023-24 at £5.5 billion. This means, after adjusting for transfers, overall core funding for local government in 2023-24 will increase by 7.9 per cent on a like-for-like basis compared to the current year. No authority will receive less than a 6.5 per cent increase. The indicative Wales-level core revenue funding for 2024-25 has also increased, as additional funding for the revenue support grant in 2023-24 is now put into the baseline.
This of course was an excellent settlement when we heard it, when it was first proposed, but we've had inflation, including increased costs of energy, which can be very eyewatering for schools, for example. The increased wage costs, including teachers, unless additionally supported by the Government, cause budget pressures on local authorities. As a result of spending decisions made in relation to education in England, Wales received a consequential of £117 million a year in the autumn statement. This is being provided in full to local government. I very much welcome that decision to provide all the available funding upfront.
Authorities will have to make prudent assumptions as part of their budget planning on this, as well as for other staff, but good job they've got, in many cases, fairly substantial reserves, if it becomes more expensive than they thought it was going to be. Discussions continue with the teaching unions over agreement on the 2022-23 academic year pay negotiations. This means that, depending upon the final agreement, some local authorities could face a shortfall in the money needed for education. Good job we've got those reserves, isn't it?
I will start by discussing the standard spending assessment. For each local authority, it'll discuss the additional external finance, finishing with the ability of local authorities to raise money from council tax fees and charges. The standard spending assessment, known as the SSA, is the mechanism for the distribution of resources to local authorities. The SSA is the Government's mechanism for allocating grants, based on a calculation of what each local authority needs to spend to deliver a standard level of service at a common rate of council tax. For the purpose of calculating individual SSA allocations, local government is broken down to 55 notional service areas.
It is very important to remember, however, that authorities' elements for the individual service areas are unhypothecated. Their notional figures serve as the building blocks for the total SSA. They do not represent spending targets for individual services, and are not meant to be prescriptive. But it does mean that if you're serving on a local authority or a Member here and you want to look at how a local authority is doing, you can see what their education SSA is, how much they're spending, and whether they're spending above or below that. If they're spending below that, you might want to ask why.
When I was involved in highway maintenance, we went from 52 per cent population and 48 per cent road length to 50 per cent for each. That moved £700,000 from large urban areas like Swansea and Cardiff to rural areas like Powys and Gwynedd. Small changes can have a substantial effect on the overall standard spending assessment. The increase in the standard spending assessment for 2022-23 varies between 5.6 per cent in Rhondda Cynon Taf and 7.1 per cent in Newport. The standard spending assessment per head for each council varies between £2,520 in Blaenau Gwent to £2,049 in Monmouth.
A separate method of distribution exists for each service element in order to distribute the total across the authorities. This method falls into two categories: a formula based on indicators of need, and distribution based on actual expenditure or estimates of expenditure. Formula based is the one that is best, and the one that people want to see being used more. I'm sure Welsh Government Ministers are fed up with me asking for this, but why cannot they publish their workings? Why can they not publish how they calculated each element of the standard spending assessment for each local authority? You'll always have people saying they've been underfunded, because all you end up with is a number at the end, and when you end up with a number at the end and you don't like that number, you say it's wrong. But why can you not publish those workings? You've got them, they're there; you couldn't be producing the standard spending assessments if you didn't have them. So, please, please publish them.
The aggregate external finance is calculated from the standard spending assessment and councils' nominal council tax receipts. These vary per capita between £2,049 in Blaenau Gwent and £1,300 in Monmouth. Again, these figures are published but the calculations, again, are not. Please publish them. Comparing Blaenau Gwent with Monmouth, Blaenau Gwent's properties are almost all in the lower two bands, whilst most properties in Monmouth are band E and above, meaning Monmouthshire has a greater capacity to raise money with the same percentage increase in council tax. So, what I'm trying to say is: can you publish the calculations, not just the end results?

Janet Finch-Saunders AC: I have to say, I agree with my colleague Mike Hedges over there that there has to be more transparency in the way that this budget is put across. Now, whether you like it or not in this Chamber—there aren't many Members here to actually remind them—it is as a result of the UK Government's autumn budget that the Welsh Government will receive an additional £1.2 billion over the next two years. This comes after an autumn budget in 2021 that pledged £18 billion a year for Wales, the largest annual funding settlement for Wales since devolution began.
Now, for me in Aberconwy, it's vital that our rural communities are given the support they need. It was very disappointing last week that Conwy County Borough Council had to raise their council tax precept by 9.9 per cent, and they actually put it down—. One of the excuses was—and it has Plaid Cymru, Labour and independent members leading it—they put it down to them not receiving their fair share from this Welsh Government.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Will you take an intervention?

Janet Finch-Saunders AC: Yes, sure.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Thank you. One of the reasons that I've been told that Conwy are facing such a steep increase is because previous leaders of the council were reticent to actually raise it as it should have been. They dipped into reserves, they left the council without the resilience that other local authorities have, and they have no option but to do it now because they've got years of catching up to do.

Janet Finch-Saunders AC: I think if you actually cast your mind back further, I can remember when Ronnie Hughes was the leader, and he did that kind of tactic. What I can tell you is that the previous leader of Conwy County Borough Council actually fought for five years of their being in Cabinet to actually try and be more prudent, and actually I supported absolutely the fact that they were able to not fleece our residents like Plaid Cymru, Labour and the independents are doing.
Monmouthshire has seen a 9.3 per cent increase and both the Vale of Glamorgan and Newport 8.9 per cent. This is a fair share from the Welsh Government. And then Conwy had just 7.3 per cent. So it will come as no surprise to see that the Plaid Cymru, Labour and independent council in Conwy have now actually implemented the highest council tax increase in England and Wales. So I say shame on them. It's the steepest increase of anywhere and this now presents a worrying burden on many hard-pressed working families. The cold, hard reality is that council tax for a band D property will rise to £1,580. And on point that Mike Hedges has also made, they often quote band D, don't they? Well, I have to be honest, in the ward that I live in and I represent on Conwy council, I have to say that there are many properties in bands E, F and G. So, when we're actually looking at how much extra, it actually looks pretty bad.
Growth in regular pay among employees in Great Britain was at 6.4 per cent in September, so there is absolutely no reason to justify a 9.9 per cent rise, and while inflation has hit all levels of Government, it has also resulted in an escalating cost-of-living crisis for local residents across the local authority area. Wales Fiscal Analysis estimated that council tax funded approximately 20.4 per cent of revenue expenditure in 2019-20, up from 13.8 per cent in 2009-10. So rather than taking action on wasteful spending or management, the council expects local council tax payers to foot this bill.
A full review of the funding formula is what we raised when I was shadow Minister for local government for seven years here. You take somewhere like Aberconwy; we are disproportionately affected now because, obviously, we have an older population, and with that comes the social care needs. And I always remember being told, 'Oh, well no other council leaders want this funding formula to be looked at'. It was actually introduced in 1991, we're now in 2023, and I actually do think, Minister, at some stage it is worth that effort. It will be hard work and effort, and you won't please everybody, but I do think you need to make the funding formula much more fair.
The other thing that Councillor Sam Rowlands has mentioned today is the huge surpluses and balances that some local authorities are able to actually hold on to. There's a 7 per cent increase for social care in Aberconwy, and yet—. I don't know if it's Rhondda Cynon Taf or Torfaen, but one of them is 25 per cent. We cannot have these inconsistencies. We talk a lot here about social responsibility and equality, and I would just say now: look at the £2 billion that's in reserves in those local authorities, and where they are not proving that they can spend it on an annual basis, I think you should be looking at clawing it back and redistributing it. Thank you. Diolch.

I call on the Minister to reply to the debate.

Rebecca Evans AC: Diolch yn fawr. Thank you to colleagues for their comments in this debate. I'll just respond to some of the specific issues that were raised. Of course, the interest in reserves was raised this afternoon, and of course, the level of local authority reserves are a matter for those local elected members. They will of course reflect those longer term plans as well as their efforts to manage short-term pressures. Every local authority has reported increased useable reserves as at March 2022 compared to the previous March, but local authorities have now been drawing on those reserves within this financial year to try and respond to some of the pressures of inflation. I know that some are also planning to use some in the coming year as part of their medium-term financial planning.
There might be a range of reasons for the increases that we've seen; for example, local authorities have faced many challenges with capital programmes as a result of the interruptions and delays perpetuated by COVID. That means that some capital grants may be held in reserves, or self-generated funding earmarked for a specific project in the year not used in that particular year. Of course, grant terms and conditions were also loosened in 2020-21 and in 2021-22 for authorities to enable them to manage the uncertainty in the delivery of service-provision programmes because of lockdowns, and, also, because of the reallocation of staff to COVID support work. Of course, that means that some funding, again, was held in reserve to deliver on projects at a later date. Authorities' reserves might also be the result of a number of decisions that have been taken over a period of years around service delivery, council tax levels and, also, their appetite for risk. I don't think that it's fair to say that the level of reserves suggests that the formula is in any way unfair or broken.
I will respond as well on the point of housing support grants—I know that that came up quite a bit in our previous debate on the budget. I think it's important that we do recognise that in the difficult financial situation we've found ourselves in, we did, actually, increase the housing support grant by 30 per cent, or £40 million, in the first year of our three-year spending review. That funding was protected by the Minister in the budget round this year, so it wasn't subject to any of the reprioritisation that some of our other funding was subject to, to try to provide further funding for local government and for the NHS as a result of the pressures that they're facing at the moment.
Whilst this settlement does build on improved allocations in recent years, I do recognise that it doesn't undo the years of austerity and the impact that that's had on public finances, nor does it match the impact of inflation on local authority costs that we've seen over recent months, and with those effects also still to come. Local authorities have had to make some really difficult decisions in setting their budgets and their council tax levels over recent weeks, and they will have taken into account the differing needs of their communities and worked to balance providing efficient services with, also, the impact of council tax rises on households. This would be a point at which I would ask colleagues to remind their local communities of our council tax reduction scheme, because we know that there are households that are eligible for that but are not yet making the most of that support that is available.
Authorities in Wales, of course, by setting their council tax levels, are responsible to their local electorate for their decisions. Unlike in England, we continue to respect their autonomy; we don't impose blanket limits or require costly local referenda. The flexibility to set their budgets and determine council tax levels to respond to local priorities is a really important feature of local democracy.
As is usual in these debates, and, indeed, in the discussions that I have with local authority leaders, the local government distribution formula has been raised. The core funding that we provide to local government is distributed through a well-established formula; it's created and developed in collaboration with local government and agreed annually with local government through the finance sub-group of the partnership council for Wales. That formula—[Interruption.] Mike, sorry, I didn't see you.

Mike Hedges AC: Will you publish the calculations of the 55 different areas of the standard spending assessment? It would prove that those who say it's wrong are correct or wrong. Until you publish that, everybody's going to say that they're being badly treated.

Rebecca Evans AC: Mike Hedges raised this with me in committee scrutiny last week, when we were scrutinising the second supplementary budget. I have committed to go away and find out what more information we can be providing for those who are involved in what is quite a niche sport, I think, of looking at the underpinnings of local government settlements. But I will certainly go and have a look at what further information can be published.
As I said, the formula is data driven and free of political agenda, and it does balance the relative need and the relative ability to raise income so that authorities in Wales are treated fairly and even-handedly. There is that ongoing programme to maintain and update the formula, including how the formula needs to respond to our work to make council tax fairer in Wales and to other changing policies and circumstances. Again, that's a major piece of work and we are looking at possible transitionary support for local government as we undertake that work of local finance reform. This is not the time to introduce another potential upheaval through a wholesale review of the settlement.
This settlement, as we've heard, has included the latest data available from the 2021 census, so I commend this settlement to the Senedd. It does reflect our commitment to public services and it continues to support local government across Wales to deliver for the people of Wales.

Thank you, Minister. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. I will therefore defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

That brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.

6. Voting Time

The first vote of this afternoon is on item 3, the debate on Welsh rates of income tax for 2023-24. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. In favour 44, 12 abstentions and none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

Item 3. Debate: Welsh Rates of Income Tax 2023-24: For: 44, Against: 0, Abstain: 12
Motion has been agreedClick to see vote results

The next vote is on item 4, the debate on the final budget for 2023-24. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 29, 12 abstentions and 15 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

Item 4. Debate: The Final Budget 2023-24: For: 29, Against: 15, Abstain: 12
Motion has been agreedClick to see vote results

The final vote is on item 5, the debate on the local government settlement for 2023-24. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 29, 12 abstentions and 15 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

Item 5. Debate: The Local Government Settlement 2023-24: For: 29, Against: 15, Abstain: 12Motion has been agreedClick to see vote results

That brings us to the end of this voting session.

Before we moveto the Stage 3 debate on the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill, I will suspend proceedings for 10 minutes in accordance with Standing Order 12.18. The bell will be rung five minutes before we reconvene. Please could Members ensure that they return promptly?

Plenary was suspended at 17:15.

The Senedd reconvened at 17:26, with the Llywydd in the Chair.

7. Debate: Stage 3 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill

We will reconvene and we will focus on Stage 3 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill until the end of this afternoon's meeting.

Group 1: Social Partnership Council (SPC): pursuit of well-being goals (Amendment 45)

Group 1 is our first group of amendments, and these relate to the social partnership council's pursuit of well-being goals. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 45, and I call on Jane Dodds to move the amendment and to speak to it.

Amendment 45 (Jane Dodds) moved.

Jane Dodds AS: Diolch, Llywydd. I would like to start by placing on record my appreciation of the way that the Deputy Minister has engaged with me throughout this. I'm very grateful to her for that engagement. The purpose of this amendment to this Bill is to allow the social partnership commission to advise on a wider range of issues in relation to the well-being goals in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.Like many other Members, I'm very proud that Wales has made a commitment in law to the well-being of our future generations, and I believe that it is absolutely right that this Bill should have the future generations Act at its heart.
Section 1 of the Bill establishes a social partnership commission that can provide advice and information to Ministers on the duties that the Bill places on Ministers and on public bodies, and in the pursuit of a prosperous well-being goal set out in the future generations Act. My amendment, and this group of amendments, proposes that the social partnership commission should be able to provide advice and information to Ministers on any of the seven well-being goals set out in the future generations Act. So, that would bring into the scope of the commission's work the other six goals.
The amendment is permissive; it does not require the social partnership commission to report on these goals, but it allows them to do so. Or, indeed, it allows Ministers to seek advice from the commission on any of these points. It does not impose additional work on the commission but allows it to work more widely while reducing the risk that, in an environment where there is likely to be overlap between these goals, potentially valuable work is not ruled out of the commission's scope. I want to make it clear that I do not believe that the social partnership commission needs to duplicate work that is being done elsewhere, most notably by the future generations commissioner. But, I do believe that it needs to be empowered to give advice where it is needed, and, indeed, to be able to respond to requests for advice from Ministers. I hope Members will support the enabling of this amendment. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Given that this is the opening amendment, I want to take the opportunity to say it is a privilege to be part of this legislative process. This is the first Bill that I've seen through for Plaid Cymru, and it has been an informative and enjoyable process. I wish to place on record my thanks to the Deputy Minister, her officials, the clerking team and my committee colleagues for their diligent and hard work. I also want to thank the various bodies who spoke with me and informed me of the potential pitfalls of the original draft of this Bill. I wholeheartedly believe that we will end up with a stronger and more resilient piece of legislation as a result of this work. I would have preferred it had the Bill gone a bit further in a number of aspects, but you can't win them all. It's important, however, that we have had a debate on the record for us to see where we all stand. Given that you'll be hearing a lot of me this evening, I will wrap things up by saying that I'll be supporting Jane's amendment, and we will be voting in favour. Diolch yn fawr.

The Deputy Minister to contribute—Hannah Blythyn.

Hannah Blythyn AC: Diolch, Llywydd. Can I start by thanking Jane Dodds too for the collaborative way in which we've managed to work together in developing and taking forward this important piece of legislation? Section 1 of the Bill sets out the purposes of the social partnership council, namely to provide information and advice to Ministers on the social partnership duties created by the Bill; socially responsible procurement, as provided for by the Bill; and the pursuit of the 'a prosperous Wales' well-being goal by public bodies when carrying out sustainable development under the well-being of future generations Act 2015.
In relation to section 1(2)(b), the section that Jane Dodds wishes to amend, the explanatory notes for the Bill explain that the purpose of this section is to enable the SPC to provide information or advice about activity taken by public bodies
'to improve the economic well-being of Wales, if that activity is linked to the "A Prosperous Wales" goal.'
This is the well-being goal that makes reference to securing 'decent work', or 'fair work', as it will be when amended by section 20 of this Bill.
Jane Dodds's amendment 45 would, in effect, extend the social partnership council's purview to encompass all of the well-being goals in Part 4 of the 2015 Act. This is, unfortunately, not something that the Government can support. It was never the intention that the social partnership council should have an across-the-board power to advise Ministers on public bodies' pursuit of all seven of the well-being goals. Other bodies will be far better positioned to do that, including, of course, the future generations commissioner. Rather, section 1, as currently drafted, already enables the social partnership council to report on the extent to which public bodies are pursuing the wider well-being goals, but in relation only to the advice and information they provide to Ministers on the social partnership and socially responsible procurement duties placed on public bodies by this Bill. Broadening the scope of the social partnership council's functions more generally, in the way proposed by the amendment, would, in the Government's view, give rise to unnecessary confusion by creating overlapping remits and responsibilities.
It's also the case that the amendment would disrupt the internal coherence of the Bill. That is because section 1(2)(b), both as currently drafted and as per the amendment, contains a signpost to Part 2. It says, '(see Part 2)'. This is intended to direct readers to Part 2, because that is the Part of the Bill that refers to the 'a prosperous Wales' well-being goal, in two places. But Part 2 does not refer to any of the other well-being goals, meaning that, if the amendment is accepted, the signpost to that Part of the Bill will become very confusing. So, for both of those reasons, the Government will not be supporting this amendment, and I urge others to resist the amendment also. Diolch.

Jane Dodds to reply to the debate.

Jane Dodds AS: Diolch yn fawr iawn, and thank you to the Minister as well for that response. We've had various discussions on this, and just, for me, the issue is that it should encompass all seven goals of the well-being of future generations Act. The Government supported that Act. The particular one that I wanted to include was 'a globally responsible Wales', a Wales that actually looks at how it's trading with places and with Governments that have very dubious human rights records. I have spoken with the Minister at length about this, and I feel that this is really at the heart of an international Wales. We want to make sure that we are globally responsible for our trade and for our ability to have those relationships with people, with places, that are actually not abusing their human rights. Many of us, I know, at lunch time, partook of chocolate from Fair Trade Wales. That's exactly what this is about. It's about ensuring that the principles of fair trade, of human rights, are within the Bill—

Alun Davies AC: Will you give way?

Jane Dodds AS: —and I would like to see those within the Act. Yes, of course I will.

Alun Davies AC: I think there'd be widespread support for your position across the Chamber, whatever the voting advice happens to say. I think most people want to see a globally responsible Wales and a Wales that reaches out and doesn't look inwards. I think that's something that we all want to see, and, certainly, from my time working in Oxfam, I remember proposing exactly those things. It may well be that we need to look at how this legislation is implemented, rather than structured and rather than worded, to ensure that, when this legislation is being delivered, those ambitions and that vision is part of the implementation and delivery.

Jane Dodds AS: Thank you very much. I'm grateful to Alun Davies for that intervention. It sounds as if you're almost about to support it. I'll be interested to see—[Interruption.] I'll be interested to see whether you will vote for it, or at least abstain, because this is such an important, fundamental issue, and that's why I want it on the Bill. I don't want it to slip from our attention. I don't want it to come back. We live in a world where there are so many human rights abuses. This is an opportunity for Wales to put its stamp on a piece of legislation that says, 'We will not tolerate human rights abuses. We will not tolerate trade with nations that infringe the rights of women, that infringe the rights of minorities.' That's why I want this on the face of the Bill, and I would appeal to anybody who's having second thoughts, perhaps about how they're being told to vote, to consider—to consider—at least abstaining, because that would really make a difference to this Bill and to Wales's position in the world. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The question that amendment 45 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 45. Open the vote on amendment 45. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 43 against. And therefore amendment 45 is not agreed.

Amendment 45: For: 13, Against: 43, Abstain: 0Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Group 2: SPC: meetings and chair (Amendments 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)

We move now to group 2. The second group of amendments relates to the social partnership council meetings and chair. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 13. I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Joel James.

Amendment 13 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Thank you, Llywydd, for this opportunity to contribute, and I would like to, first of all, speak to my own amendments. The reality is that the bulk of membership on the social partnership council will made up of trade union council members, who will represent trade unions that directly fund the Labour Party. We have only ever had a Labour First Minister in Wales, and I think it's absolutely clear that having such members on an advisory council is not only to be considered a conflict of interest, but down right nepotism. Welsh Labour is in alliance with these organisations, which, in turn, fund them, and having these organisations represented on an advisory—

Sorry, Joel. I am unable to hear Joel at the moment, so, if Members could be slightly quieter, and if you can carry on with your contribution.

Joel James MS: Thank you, Llywydd. Having them represented on an advisory council consequently creates two significant problems. Firstly, it either produces an echo chamber for the First Minister and Government Ministers, to only hear the things that they want to hear, or, secondly, it becomes an advisory council where, if the Government does not take trade union advice, the Government can be threatened with the removal of its political funding, and trade unions are more than willing to use this mechanism.

Hefin David AC: Will you take an intervention?

Joel James MS: Trade unions are more than willing to use this mechanism, as we have seen with the Unite general secretary—

Are you taking an intervention?

Joel James MS: No.
—the Unite general secretary, Sharon Graham, threatening Sir Keir Starmer with a reduction in funding last July after he sacked Sam Tarry from the front bench for joining a picket line. The council, in its current form, means that the integrity of the advice and the impartiality of the First Minister will always be questioned. If the First Minister takes the advice of the council with so many representatives from Labour-supporting trade unions, then this Government will be accused of being at the beck and call of trade unions, and this is not a characteristic of a healthy Government. The SPC aims are to provide advice—

I'm afraid, Joel, I'm going to have to intervene. This is a long session. Can we please listen to Joel quietly? I understand that you may not agree with what he's saying. You may seek to intervene if you want to as well, but if Members are able to be quiet whilst Joel carries on contributing, and, if you can, if you can project higher, then—. I'm struggling to hear you at the moment as well.

Joel James MS: Yes. I'm sorry; I've got a cold.

Yes. Thank you.

Joel James MS: The SPC aims are to provide advice and information to Government Ministers. If you look at the tripartite social partnership councils in Europe—and I cannot account for all of them, but—large proportions of them have independent chairs who, in turn, have relevant and specialist knowledge.
In response to these proposed amendments at Stage 2, my opposition colleague Ken Skates remarked that the SPC is a Welsh Government body and that he's unaware of any
'other Executive bodies that have chairs appointed by the Senedd, so it's entirely appropriate that the First Minister, or for that matter, any other Minister or Deputy Minister within the Government should chair the council.'
However, can I remind Members here that Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson is the independent chair of Sport Wales, which is an Executive Welsh Government sponsored body, and Phil George is the independent chair of Arts Council Wales? So, there is precedent to have an independent chair on a Welsh Government executive body. I believe that the Welsh Government should be able to show that there is transparency and impartiality with regard to the SPC and they should appoint an independent chair, and this is why these amendments have been tabled. Thank you, Llywydd.

The Deputy Minister, Hannah Blythyn.

Hannah Blythyn AC: Diolch, Llywydd. I very much regret the way in which Joel James seeks to deliberately debase and undermine the purpose of the social partnership council, and we've very much been here before in this discussion.
In response to amendment 13, when we discussed this same issue during our Stage 2 deliberations, I said that it's entirely appropriate for the social partnership council, which will be an advisory body to the Welsh Government, to be chaired by a Welsh Government Minister, in this case, the First Minister. As I also said during Stage 2, it'd be highly unusual for the Senedd to have a role in appointing a chair to an advisory council such as this. So, we will not be supporting amendments 13 or 16.
Turning to amendment 38, again this is an issue we spoke about at Stage 2, and, as I said at the time, a requirement to publish social partnership council agendas two weeks ahead of each meeting would serve very little practical purpose. It would, however, be unnecessarily and unusually restrictive and would hinder the social partnership council's ability to respond in a flexible and agile way to changing circumstances. My previous position on this has not changed, so the Government will also not be supporting amendment 38. Diolch.

Joel James to respond.

Joel James MS: Thank you, Llywydd, and I must confess I still have no idea why there's so much resistance to an independent chair for this advisory council. I really do think that the Government is missing an opportunity, because an independent chair would not only be able to scrutinise and fight for improvements, but would actually be able to spend time investigating some of the most important issues that are relevant for us. These amendments would enhance the SPCand I'm disappointed that they have not been supported. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 13 agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 13. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. And therefore amendment 13 is not agreed.

Amendment 13: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Group 3: SPC: worker and employer representatives (Amendments 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 39, 40, 42)

We move now to group 3. The third group of amendments relates to the social partnership council's worker and employer representatives. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 14. I call on Joel James to move the lead amendment. Joel James.

Amendment 14 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Thank you, Llywydd, and I will speak to my amendments. The majority of active enterprises in Wales are small and medium-sized enterprises, which account for around 99 per cent of all total enterprises and for 62 per cent of all employment and 38 per cent of all turnover. The SME business community does not organise itself in the same way as Government or trade unions in terms of presenting a unified voice, and there's a high degree of variance between the needs of these businesses and the needs of their employees. I find the idea absurd that they will not have a direct voice on the SPC, where nine members will be from the Government and nine members from trade unions, who only represent around 30 per cent of employees in Wales, most of whom are from the public sector. The Deputy Minister responded to my previous proposed amendments regarding increasing the number of employer representatives to ensure that small, medium and large businesses have a voice at the table, by saying that the SPC is designed to be a tripartite and increasing employer representatives who would secure this. My proposed amendments today would resolve that issue by increasing the number of trade union and employer representatives to 12. This allows for equal trade union representative from TUC-affiliated and non-TUC-affiliated bodies. And there's also capacity to adopt three representatives from small, medium and large businesses onto the council, without the council being skewed. These amendments also support my amendments, and those of Peredur in group 4, which ensure that half of worker representatives are not affiliated with the TUC.
Growing SME businesses has the considerable positive impact of employment creation, innovation, productivity growth and competitiveness, and we need to ensure that Government understands the pressures that these businesses face. SMEs in particular have unique challenges, which will vary from region to region and sector to sector, and they're exposed to the volatility of markets in a way that larger businesses and the public sector are not. Having up-to-date advice from the SME sector will be invaluable to the Government in its planning for fair work in supply chains, and having direct business contact will ensure that the largest group of employers in Wales will have a voice. You have said, Deputy Minister, that the purpose of the council is to provide information and advice to the Welsh Ministers on relevant matters, to reach consensus on issues of mutual interest, and to provide us with the advice to better inform policy development and support implementation. Well, what is more relevant than direct advice from the largest group of employers in Wales? Thank you, Llywydd.

The Deputy Minister to contribute. Hannah Blythyn.

Hannah Blythyn AC: Diolch, Llywydd. I'm not convinced by the arguments Joel James has put forward for increasing the number of employers and worker representatives on the council. There is no discernible benefit from increasing the number of employers' and workers' representatives from nine to 12, and the Bill already provides for all relevant sectors and interests to be represented. As far as amendment 22 is concerned, we believe that ensuring businesses of all sizes are represented on the council is a matter that employer representatives will, without any legal requirement from us, give careful consideration to when making their nominations. And of course, we will work with the sector to ensure that this is the case in practice. The Government will not be supporting these amendments. Diolch.

Joel James to respond.

Joel James MS: Thank you, Llywydd. And again, I really do not understand the rationale behind this Government's thinking. You want a Bill that improves the well-being of people across Wales, for the purpose of improving economic, environmental, social and cultural well-being, yet you do not want to hear directly from any of the businesses or their employees about relevant matters. I really do think that you exclude businesses at your peril, because, ultimately, these are the ones that you will most want to voluntarily adopt your well-being goals, and the more you push them away, the less likely it will be for you to understand the barriers they face to adopting those goals. That's it, Llywydd. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 14. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Amendment 14 is not agreed.

Amendment 14: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 15 is next.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 15 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

Yes, it's being moved. So, the question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 15. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Amendment 15 is not agreed.

Amendment 15: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 16 is next.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 16 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes, moved.

Yes, it's being moved.

The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 16. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Amendment 16 is not agreed.

Amendment 16: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 17 is next.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 17 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes, moved.

Yes, it is.

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 17. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Amendment 17 is not agreed.

Amendment 17: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 18.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 18 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes, moved.

Yes, it is.

The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 18. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 18 is not agreed.

Amendment 18: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 19.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 19 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes, moved.

Yes, it is.

The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We'll proceed to a vote therefore on amendment 19. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 19 is not agreed.

Amendment 19: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 20.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 20 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes, moved.

Yes, it's being moved. Therefore, the question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 20. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 20 is not agreed.

Amendment 20: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 21, Joel James.

Amendment 21 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes, moved.

Yes, being moved.

The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we'll proceed to a vote on amendment 21. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 21 is not agreed.

Amendment 21: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 22.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 22 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes, moved.

Yes, amendment 22 is moved. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. [Objection.] There is an objection and we therefore move to a vote on amendment 22. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 22 is not agreed.

Amendment 22: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 23.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 23 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes, moved.

Yes, it is.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Is there objection? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we will take a vote on amendment 23. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 23 is not agreed.

Amendment 23: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 24, Joel James.

Is it being moved?

Amendment 24 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes, moved.

Yes, it is.

Is there any objection to accepting amendment 24? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we will move to a vote on amendment 24.Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore amendment 24 is not agreed.

Amendment 24: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 25, Joel James.

Is it being moved?

Amendment 25 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes, moved.

Yes. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore we will proceed to a vote on amendment 25. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore amendment 25 is not agreed.

Amendment 25: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Finally in this series of amendments, amendment 26, Joel James.

Is is being moved?

Amendment 26 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes, moved.

Yes, it is.

The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore we will proceed to a vote on amendment 26. Open the vote.

One Member still to vote.

In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore amendment 26 is not agreed.

Amendment 26: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Group 4: Nominations to the SPC by Wales TUC Cymru (Amendments 2, 27)

Group 4 is the next group of amendments. This group relates to nominations to the partnership council by Wales TUC Cymru. I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to move amendment 2.

Amendment 2 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Diolch, Llywydd. I wish to make it clear from the outset that this is a probing amendment, designed to ensure the maximum possible plurality for the social partnership council. It's not designed to slight anyone, nor any organisation. It is submitted in good faith to ensure that the voices heard as part of the new and influential council are drawn from as wide a pool as possible. This amendment would therefore place a statutory duty on the First Minister to seek nominations for worker representatives on the social partnership council that are not affiliated with the TUC.
As I've stated previously at committee stage, our calls for worker representation on the social partnership council that extend beyond TUC-affiliated unions is not designed to cast doubt on the vital contribution of the TUC in advancing the rights of workers in Wales. Indeed, we have excellent relationships with the TUC, and long may that continue. We are glad that the Bill contains provisions to ensure that the TUC has a strong voice in shaping the future course of social partnership. Rather, as Plaid Cymru has emphasised through the progression of this Bill, in order to truly realise the benefits of tripartite engagement on social partnership and, in particular, to move towards a progressive high-road model of industrial relations, we must ensure that the composition of the social partnership council is reflective of the diversity of labour representation here in Wales.We firmly believe that guaranteeing a seat at the table for non-TUC bodies such as the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association—both huge and influential trade unions in their own right—will enrich the outlook of the social partnership council and enhance its potential to deliver the goals in the interests of a broad section of Welsh society.
Since we first brought this matter forward, I'm pleased to say that I've had very productive meetings with the Deputy Minister, who has given assurances that, while the inclusion of a statutory duty of this nature will not be possible, the TUC has nevertheless provided written guarantees to put forward nominations to the SPC on behalf of the whole trade union membership in Wales. I've also engaged with the TUC directly for further clarification on the matter. They concur wholeheartedly with the general principle that the SPC should include a wide spectrum of trade union representation. They've also explained that, in line with similar arrangements in place for the workforce partnership council, they will endeavour to establish an SPC union secretariat, consisting of all registered trade unions in Wales who wish to be members. We are very grateful for these assurances.
In light of that, is the Deputy Minister prepared to go on the record in the Siambr to confirm that the nomination process to the SPC will function in this way? And can she provide assurances to trade unions not affiliated to the TUC so that concerns around the nomination process can be allayed? If concerns can be addressed sufficiently, we will happily withdraw this amendment. Diolch yn fawr.

The Deputy Minister, Hannah Blythyn.

Can the Deputy Minister's microphone be unmuted? Yes, there you go.

Hannah Blythyn AC: Diolch, Llywydd. It might be worth recapping the background to this issue for the benefit of those Members who've not been so closely involved in the passage of the Bill as the members of the scrutiny committee and me. As Peredur set out in his opening remarks, during the committee stages of scrutiny, concerns were raised by some parties in relation to the role of Wales TUC as the body that will provide nominations to the First Minister for worker representatives to sit on the social partnership council. Those concerns were based on an assumption that, in this role, Wales TUC would, or perhaps even could, only nominate individuals from trade unions affiliated to the TUC, with the result that some professions or sectors would be excluded from the SPC, simply by dint of their members not being in unions affiliated to the TUC. I have clarified during previous stages, and in discussions with Members outside of committee, that this is not the intention of sections 4 and 5 of the Bill, and that Wales TUC will be able to nominate worker representatives from non-affiliated unions. As the explanatory notes to this part of the Bill make clear, the intention is
'to create a diverse group by providing for a wide range of workers to be represented on the SPC'.
I should also remind Members that, again, as stated in the explanatory notes, the First Minister is under no obligation to appoint all or any individuals nominated by Wales TUC Cymru to be a worker representative, and that
'the First Minister could decide not to appoint one or more Wales TUC Cymru nominees and ask for others to be nominated.'
Our Wales TUC colleagues fully appreciate the nature of this role, and have confirmed in their letter, which I shared with committee members last month, that it's their intention to seek nominees from all trade unions in Wales, not just those affiliated to the TUC. I would just like to take a minute to quote a few lines from the letter for the benefit of those Members who will not have seen it:
'Wales TUC is the only suitable structure to work with the entire union movement to conduct elections for the worker representative nominees to the Social Partnership Council…. This is a role we already hold for the trade union delegation to the Workforce Partnership Council, where we take the role of secretariat for all trade unions recognised in the devolved public sector (including trade unions which are not affiliated to the TUC, such as the RCN, BMA and ASCL).'
The letter goes on to say,
'we will establish a SPC union side as the democratic group to determine union-side nominations to the SPC, and protocols for how those with SPC seats engage with the wider union-side and existing sectoral arrangements. This will include arrangements to ensure that smaller trade unions are not excluded',
and concludes with an expectation that
'non-affiliated trade unions [will] be included as part of the list of nominees presented to the First Minister'.
Before I close, I would also like to mention specifically in relation to representation of the health and social care sectors that the purpose of the SPC is not to replace those existing, well-established social partnerships such as the NHS Wales partnership forum, but to build strong and effective relationships between current structures and the SPC.
So, in conclusion, whilst the Government is satisfied that the written commitment we have from Wales TUC provides sufficient guarantee that nominations to the social partnership council will include representatives from non-affiliated unions, I can assure Members that if, for any reason, this agreement was to prove insufficient at any point in the future, we would, of course, be willing to revisit the matter. So, whilst the Government will not be supporting amendments 2 or 27, as I said at Stage 2, we do appreciate the spirit in which they have been tabled.

Peredur Owen Griffiths to reply.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Diolch, Llywydd. I thank the Deputy Minister for those reassurances. There was some anxiety in some quarters that certain groups and workers would be disenfranchised from this element of the Bill. Having heard those reassurances on the record today, I am content that any unintended consequences of this part of the Bill will not be realised. Having said that, I'm grateful for the undertaking that matters could be revisited if those assurances are not fully realised. For the same reason, we won't be supporting the Conservative amendment in this group. Therefore, Llywydd, I'd like to withdraw this amendment.

Thank you for that. Is there an objection to the withdrawing of amendment 2? No, there isn't. I consider amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 2 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.

Amendment 27 will be our next vote—amendment 27 in the name of Joel James.

Is it being moved?

Amendment 27 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

It is. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 27. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 27 is not agreed.

Amendment 27: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 28.

Is it being moved, Joel James?

Amendment 28 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

Yes, it is.

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 28. Open the vote.

Technical difficulty overcome.

Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 28 is not agreed.

Amendment 28: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 29.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 29 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

It is. Is there any objection to amendment 29? [Objection.] There is. We will therefore move to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 29. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 29 is not agreed.

Amendment 29: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Group 5: Political affiliation (Amendments 30, 41)

We move now to group 5. The fifth group of amendments relates to political affiliation. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 30, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment, and to the other amendment in the group. Joel James.

Amendment 30 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Thank you, Llywydd, and I will speak to my amendments. For the purpose of strengthening transparency and accountability, it is entirely appropriate, in my mind, that those trade unions who have elected members onto the SPC are asked to declare as part of the council proceedings whether or not they're affiliated with a political party. This amendment does not breach any confidentiality and will ensure that the SPC meetings are fully transparent. This is, after all, one of the key policies that the trade unions have repeatedly called for. Thank you.

The Deputy Minister to contribute—Hannah Blythyn.

Hannah Blythyn AC: Diolch. These amendments would require worker representatives appointed to the social partnership council to declare whether the trade union they are a member of is affiliated to a political party. I note that Joel James's amendment is only seeking to apply this requirement to worker representatives. This is unnecessary, as trade unions' political affiliations are public and well known, as Joel James very regularly likes to refer to in this Siambr. The SPC is not intended to be a political forum. Rather, it is a mechanism for bringing together Welsh Government and social partners in support of the duties set out in the Bill and, more widely, our shared well-being goals in the interests of Wales. Therefore, I very much ask Members to resist amendments 30 and 41.

Joel James to respond.

Joel James MS: Thank you, Llywydd, and I'm not surprised that the Deputy Minister's yet again rejected my amendment. It's clear that the Deputy Minister and the Welsh Government are not open to any transparency whatsoever and it is becoming very obvious that the Welsh Government wants the SPC to not have any independence of thought whatsoever. Indeed, the Welsh Government want it to be a closed group that may well have the appearance of an advisory council, but will ultimately be nothing more than a lickspittle for the establishment, telling the Government only what it wants to hear and to offer as little scrutiny as possible. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 30. Open the vote.Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 30 is not agreed.

Amendment 30: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 31.

Is it being moved?

Amendment 31 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

Yes, it's been moved by Joel James. Is there any objection to amendment 31? [Objection.] There is objection. Open the vote on amendment 31. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 31 is not agreed.

Amendment 31: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 32—

—being moved, Joel James?

Amendment 32 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

It is. Is there any objection to amendment 32? [Objection.] Yes, there is. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 32. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 32 is not agreed.

Amendment 32: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 33, Joel James.

Amendment 33 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

Yes, being moved.

The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 33. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 33 is not agreed.

Amendment 33: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 34.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 34 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

It is. Is there any objection to amendment 34? [Objection.] There is. We will therefore proceed to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 34. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 34 is not agreed.

Amendment 34: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 35.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 35 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

Yes, amendment 35 is moved. Is there any objection? [Objection.] There is. Therefore, we will proceed to a vote on amendment 35. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 35 is not agreed.

Amendment 35: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 36.

Is it being moved, Joel James?

Amendment 36 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

It is. Is there any objection to amendment 36? [Objection.] There is. We'll proceed to a vote on amendment 36. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 36 is not agreed.

Amendment 36: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 37, Joel James.

Amendment 37 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

Yes, being moved.

Any objection to amendment 37? [Objection.] There is. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 37. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 37 is not agreed.

Amendment 37: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 38.

Joel James—being moved?

Amendment 38 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

The question is that amendment 38 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 38. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 38 is not agreed.

Amendment 38: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Group 6: Subgroups of the SPC (Amendment 3)

The next group of amendments is group 6, and this group relates to sub-groups of the social partnership council. The lead amendment is amendment 3, and I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to move and speak to the amendment.Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Amendment 3 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. The purpose of this amendment is to amend section 9 of the Bill, which sets out the arrangements for the public procurement sub-group. This will add a requirement for Welsh Ministers to produce guidance to which the social partnership council must have regard when appointing members to its public procurement sub-group. In particular, that guidance must include requirements regarding the composition of the sub-group to ensure its membership is representative of the various sectors that will be impacted by the procurement duties.
Concerns have been expressed to me by groups within the third sector that they may be excluded from discussions that could really benefit from their expertise. We need to ensure that there is a mechanism to include such expertise and ensure that voices are heard in the room during the relevant discussions. In essence, this will reinforce the engagement of the aforementioned sectors within the overarching goals of the Bill, as well as the transparency of decision making. I look forward to listening to what the Minister has to say on this, and I'd like to move the amendment.

The Deputy Minister, Hannah Blythyn.

Hannah Blythyn AC: The social partnership council will be responsible for establishing the statutory public procurement sub-group. Procurement sub-group members will be selected to provide expert advice, and not to represent particular groups of stakeholders. However, in order for that advice to be balanced, members will need to possess relevant expertise and be able to reflect the perspectives of those affected by the procurement duties, including public bodies, private and third sector organisations, and social partners.
This amendment would require the Government to issue guidance to the social partnership council on how this balance may best be achieved. Given the important role the public procurement sub-group will play, I agree it would be helpful to the social partnership council to have guidance relating to the appointment of members to ensure that the right blend of expertise and experience is brought together. On that basis, Llywydd, the Government is happy to support this amendment. Diolch.

Peredur Owen Griffiths to respond.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Thank you, Deputy Minister, for your comments. I would like to thank the many third sector organisations and charities that have offered views and suggestions about this area of the Bill and the real concern that their voices might not have been heard. I thank the Government for their willingness to support this amendment, which is about ensuring that the right voices are being heard according to the expertise that is required. Many organisations will now be waiting to see how the guidance is developed, and I hope that they will take comfort from the assurances given by the Minister. It is reassuring to know that there are still political parties out there who are prepared to put their faith in experts. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, there is no objection. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 39 is next.

Amendment 39—Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 39 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

Yes, it's being moved. The question is, therefore, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we will have a vote on amendment 39. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, one abstention, 41 against. Amendment 39 is not agreed.

Amendment 39: For: 14, Against: 41, Abstain: 1
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 40.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 40 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

Yes. Amendment 40 is moved. Is there objection? [Objection.] Yes, there's objection. Therefore, we will have a vote on amendment 40. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 40 is not agreed.

Amendment 40: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 41 is next. Is it being moved, Joel James?

Amendment 41 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

Yes, it is. Therefore the question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. Therefore, we will have a vote on amendment 41. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 41 is not agreed.

Amendment 41: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 42.

Is it being moved?

Amendment 42 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Yes.

Yes. Is there objection to amendment 42? [Objection.] Yes, there is. Therefore, we'll have a vote on amendment 42. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 42 is not agreed.

Amendment 42: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Group 7: Social partnership duty (Amendment 43)

Group 7 is the next group of amendments and they relate to the social partnership duty. Amendment 43 is the lead and only amendment in this group. I call on Joel James to move and speak to the amendment.

Amendment 43 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Thank you, Llywydd. I wish to speak to my amendment 43. The purpose of this amendment is to have clarity over the time frame for which a public body can move on with meeting well-being goals if consensus has not been reached with staff representatives. I believe that it is an important point to have it defined in the Bill. Public bodies, whilst I am sure will make every effort to accommodate the well-being objectives of staff, may well be presented with requests that they cannot, for one reason or another, commit to, and it is entirely appropriate that this should not allow public bodies to be stopped from carrying out their statutory duty. A period of 90 days to reach consensus is not onerous or restrictive and allows a mechanism for a public body to not be held up in progressing with agreed well-being goals. Thank you.

The Deputy Minister to contribute—Hannah Blythyn.

Hannah Blythyn AC: Diolch. Section 16 of the Bill establishes a statutory social partnership duty requiring public bodies, insofar as is reasonable, to seek consensus or compromise, primarily with their recognised trade unions, when setting and delivering their well-being objectives under the well-being of future generations Act. Where a public body does not have a recognised trade union, it must seek consensus or compromise with other representatives of its staff. The Bill does not require that agreement to be reached. This amendment is therefore unnecessary. It seeks to address a problem that does not exist, and the Government will not be supporting it. Diolch.

Joel James to respond.

Joel James MS: Thank you, Llywydd. By not having a time frame stated in the Bill, I ultimately think that the Welsh Government will come to regret this decision. When demands are made of public bodies by trade unions or staff representatives that they cannot accommodate, the public body will fail in meeting its statutory duty, and something as simple as failing to agree well-being goals will mean that public bodies in Wales may well become liable for damages in the face of neglect in their duty of care to staff. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objections, therefore we will proceed to a vote on amendment 43. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 43 is not agreed.

Amendment 43: For: 15, Against: 41, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Group 8: Socially responsible procurement duty (Amendments 4, 1)

Group 8 is the next group of amendments, and these amendments relate to the socially responsible procurement duty. Amendment 4 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to move and speak to the lead amendment.

Amendment 4 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Diolch, Llywydd. As I've noted throughout each stage of this Bill's journey through the Senedd, I want to emphasise once again the importance of making this legislation as strong as possible when it comes to public procurement within Wales. For more than a decade, Plaid Cymru has called for ambitious yet realistic targets, quantitative measures, and clear aims to increase the value added to the Welsh economy through procurement, to bolster our economy and to increase the level of public spending that is awarded to companies, businesses and organisations based in Wales, essentially keeping the public pound in the pockets of our people, communities and our nation. In those 10 plus years, tens of thousands of jobs could have been created in Wales had ambitious targets been set and met.
Amendment 4, brought forward by Plaid Cymru, which could make it a requirement that the socially responsible procurement objectives must set out in quantitative terms how they intend to increase the value added to the Welsh economy through public sector procurement, has been brought forward to address what Plaid Cymru has been calling for and what the Welsh economy desperately needs: a clear aim to increase the amount of public money that is spent in Wales, with local and national suppliers, businesses and organisations. Had procurement targets been set some 10 years ago, the future of many small to medium-sized companies could have been secured by harnessing the power of public sector purchasing. What's more, we could have created opportunities for many small to medium-sized companies to start up by giving them an opportunity to integrate into the supply chain. It would be a massive missed opportunity, therefore, if we did not grasp the opportunity now to do something about this comparatively low level of public procurement in Wales within this legislation.
The prize to be won from setting a clear intention in quantitative terms on how to add value to local economies through public procurement targets is vast. Plaid Cymru's 2021 Senedd manifesto estimated that 46,000 additional jobs could be created from increasing the level of Welsh public procurement from 52 per cent to 75 per cent. This would be done using the Welsh Government's £6.3 billion public procurement budget, and by working in close partnership with public bodies. Plaid Cymru-controlled Gwynedd council have matched their words by deeds, by supporting local businesses and raising public procurement within the local authority. Their actions have delivered a big boost for the local economy. Therefore, this would be standardising what many bodies are already doing, in line with the stated aim of this legislation, to improve public procurement. In effect, these would be locally owned ambitions that each body would have ownership over, including national bodies such as the Welsh Government itself. Progressive local authorities are already doing it. The authorities that run this Senedd are doing it. This is what can be achieved with political will, and with our amendment to the Bill—to set out in quantitative terms how the socially responsible procurement objectives will increase the value added to the Welsh economy.
The difficulty in collecting data has often been cited as a reason not to pursue targets. We also know that successive Governments of Wales over the years have been averse to setting targets for fear of failure. These matters are not insurmountable, and they certainly do not provide good reason to shy away from a measure that has huge potential to boost our economy.I ask the Deputy Minister, therefore, to think again about the resistance to setting clear goals, by setting a duty through the Bill to define the value added through public procurement in the Welsh economy. Surely we should do this now, especially at a time when our economy needs such a boost.
Before I finish, it seems that the use of targets as a policy lever available to all Governments—this one included—is something that appeals to some Members of the Cabinet more than others. The Minister for rural affairs and north Wales, as part of the discussion in the Finance Committee meeting less than a month ago, on 9 February 2023, noted:
'I'm a Minister who likes targets; not all Ministers do.'
The Minister went on to say:
'I personally think that targets, when you look at the amount of Welsh food and drink that is procured by our schools, for instance, in school meals, and our hospitals and health boards, I certainly think that we need to increase it.'
The Minister finished the response to my question by saying:
'Whenever you set a target or whenever you set a strategy or a policy, you need to look at where you want to be—what's the end game? Where do you want to go to? And if targets will help us get there, then certainly, I think it's worth looking at.'
With this in mind, I ask the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership and the Welsh Government that she represents: is food procurement around the provision of free school meals, securing and actively choosing locally sourced products and ingredients, as far as possible, not the natural first step to explore the setting of targets? This is particularly relevant when the Welsh Government's shared commitment with Plaid Cymru, as part of the co-operation agreement to deliver universal free school meals for primary school children, is, and I quote,
'supporting educational attainment and child nutrition whilst also enhancing local food production and distribution chains, benefiting local economies.'
The Deputy Minister has, at the Stage 2 committee debate on this Bill, referred to statutory guidance, and the role of the Welsh Government within that guidance to set out the clear intention of achieving more consistent improvements in the achievement of well-being outcomes, including on the contribution that procurement makes to our economy in Wales. Will the Deputy Minister, in response to our contribution on this amendment, commit to taking action to fully explore how the amendment, should it not be supported by the Government, or any of its backbench today, may influence the statutory guidance? Diolch yn fawr.

Jenny Rathbone AC: This raises quite a significant issue. Obviously, what the Plaid Cymru amendment aspires to is something that I regard as extremely important. But it also illustrates the limits of our powers. As a Welsh Parliament, we can legislate for the benefit of Wales, but we can't override international agreements, and some of the international agreements have already been mentioned today, namely the one that has been signed with Australia and New Zealand. And were relations with China to break down to such an extent that the meat and dairy arrangements that Australia and New Zealand have with China could immediately lead to the redirection of all those products to our island and to Wales, quite how we would defend ourselves from that is an open question. And it certainly would beg the question as to how public bodies that have to be compliant with the well-being of future generations Act would respond in relation to both our global responsibilities as well as our need to promote a prosperous, resilient, healthier Wales. But I understand that we can't also be legislating on something that would give people in another place an opportunity to interfere with what we are aspiring to do. So, I find this a really difficult and problematic issue that we're going to have to resolve further down the line, I think, because it seems to me that, if we vote for this, then we may put the whole Bill at risk.

The Deputy Minister to contribute, Hannah Blythyn.

Hannah Blythyn AC: Diolch, Llywydd. Can I thank Members for their contributions? And, actually, can I take this opportunity to thank Jenny Rathbone for the work that she's done on this legislation in her role as chair of the Equality and Social Justice Committee, as well?
Firstly, in relation to amendment 4, this is something that we've spoken at length on during the passage of this legislation with regard to procurement targets, and I have explained previously why it's not appropriate for a provision relating to targets to be included on the face of the Bill, irrespective of whether we call them 'targets' or 'objectives' in quantitative terms. The Bill will require contracting authorities to consider all of the well-being goals, balancing these against costs and quality. This is a complex matter. Focusing on numerical targets in one particular area has the potential to create perverse incentives and sub-optimal outcomes.
The Government did bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 to section 39 of the Bill to make clear the information that we will expect contracting authorities to provide under the annual reporting requirement. This will include information on how an authority’s procurement is benefiting the economy of its area, including through the awarding of contracts to small and medium-sized enterprises. We believe that this is the right approach.I'll have more to say on section 39 when we discuss group 10, but for now, I can confirm that the Government will not be supporting amendment 4.
However, as Peredur set out in his contribution, there is work across Government to really maximise the strength of public procurement in Wales, whether that's through the purchasing of Welsh-made goods and services, or through the work as set out in the co-operation agreement to carry out detailed analysis of public sector supply chains and measuring the economic benefits of a procurement project. I absolutely commit to continuing to work collaboratively with all stakeholders and partners in the development of the statutory guidance that sits alongside this legislation.
In relation to amendment 1, this Government amendment is minor and technical in nature. At Stage 2, a number of amendments were passed that replaced all references to socially responsible procurement goals in the Bill with references to well-being goals. The purpose of those amendments was to strengthen the link between the socially responsible procurement duties and the achievement of well-being goals under the 2015 Act. However, one remaining reference to socially responsible procurement goals in Schedule 2 to the Bill was overlooked at the time. So, Government amendment 1 simply corrects that oversight.
So, in closing, I confirm that the Government will not be supporting amendment 4, but I ask that Members support amendment 1. Diolch.

Peredur Owen Griffiths to reply.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Diolch, Llywydd. If I go to Jenny first on the development of the statutory guidance and looking at locally sourced food, it's something that can be worked through. I don't quite understand the argument that Jenny was making, but I'm sure that the Minister will be working with local suppliers and local authorities to work through those things and to work within the statutory guidance within this Bill.It's disappointing that the Minister doesn't like targets, but we've had this conversation a couple of times, and it comes as no surprise to me, really, on that.But, when we're looking at the perversive outcomes or the unintended consequences discussing this amendment, it's more about the intended consequences of creating tens of thousands of jobs in Wales and the economy, and strong local procurement does that. And what about the desired outcome of adding tens of millions of pounds to the Welsh economy? So, I think we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on those parts.
I do welcome the Minister's comments to improve the collection of data and to give us a better reflection of the current baseline. This is something that the Government tells us is a significant barrier to measuring and therefore setting procurement targets, so any shift towards a system that would enable this in the future, perhaps even with a future Government, is also very welcome. We also welcome the commitments made through the co-operation agreement for the addition of £100,000 to £150,000-worth of funding to promote Welsh-made goods and services. We will continue to work, through the co-operation agreement, on our joint commitment to carry out detailed analysis of public sector supply chains.
I note the Minister's comments on the development of the statutory guidance and the importance of engaging with partners in collaboration in this development. I'm disappointed that the Minister does not fully recognise the opportunity, through the guidance, to give a clear signal to set a policy aim of increasing the level of public procurement of goods and services from local suppliers and businesses. So, to conclude, this Government should focus more on the positive rather than the negative impact of aspects of legislation. This is why I urge the Senedd to vote for this amendment. Diolch.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 4. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, no abstentions and 28 against, therefore the vote is tied. I will therefore use my casting vote in the negative against amendment 4. So, the final result: in favour 28, no abstentions and 29 against, therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.

Amendment 4: For: 28, Against: 28, Abstain: 0
As there was an equality of votes, the Chair used her casting vote in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 1. Is amendment 1 being moved by the Deputy Minister?

Amendment 1 (Hannah Blythyn) moved.

Yes, it is moved. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 9: Social public works clauses (Amendments 5, 6, 12)

We move to our next group, which is group 9, and this group of amendments relates to social public works clauses. The lead amendment is amendment 5, and I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to move and speak to the lead amendment and the group.

Amendment 5 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Diolch yn fawr. The purpose of amendment is 5 to amend section 27, which deals with the social public works clauses that must be included in contracts for major construction contracts. The categories and improvements sought through this section of the legislation are intended to bring about improvements to economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being as a result of specific large-scale procurement activities in construction. Table 1 at section 27(2) lists the categories and improvements that will be the basis of publishing model clauses by Welsh Ministers for inclusion in such public construction works. At Stage 2, we highlighted that the Bill, as introduced, referenced needing to facilitate improving employment opportunities for certain protected characteristic groups, though omitted others. It is essential that the legislation, and, in particular in this context, the model clauses that Welsh Ministers will be obliged to publish under this section, set out the gold standard, to ensure that new jobs and investments following from major construction contracts benefit groups and places that face structural barriers to work and have been under-represented in the workforce, therefore using procurement as a lever to create the nation of equals that we want to see.
I welcome the discussion that we've had with the Minister following Stage 2, and this matter, and I'm pleased to bring forward amendment 5, which adds additional protected characteristics to the face of the Bill. As well as improving representation of these groups within and the diversity of the workforce at the most fundamental level, we envisage that expanding the improvements sought through the employment category of this table to include other groups, such as women, people of colour, and LGBTQ+ people, presents an opportunity to use procurement levers to influence good practice in the private sector—for instance, to advance the cause of equal pay. We know from Chwarae Teg's latest 'State of the Nation' report that the gender pay gap in Wales still stands at 11.3 per cent. There is also an opportunity to encourage the extension of the same good practice that exists in public services in one—granted—specific but nevertheless significant, part of the private sector, in terms of shared parental leave, for instance. The possibilities are endless. If the Senedd agrees to this amendment, then we will have a strong basis on which to make further progress. This, in turn, will also help embed and bring to life in a very practical sense the aspirations that lie behind other commitments that are at the heart of Plaid Cymru's co-operation agreement with the Welsh Government, notably, the LGBTQ+ action plan and the race equality action plan.
My other two amendments in this group are futureproofing the amendments that will allow this Government, or indeed future Governments, to add, remove or amend the category and improvements under the category, subject to the affirmative vote of the Senedd. As the experience of implementing this legislation and monitoring whether and to what extent procurement is having, as we hope it will, the desired effect on driving forward social objectives, it is right and proper that Welsh Ministers are able to make the case to the Senedd to amend this section of the legislation, without having to rewrite the whole legislation. I have mentioned using procurement levers to drive forward our objectives in terms of equality and creating a truly fairer Wales. Another scenario in which this could be used is in relation to climate crisis. This is particularly important given the urgent need for radical approaches to tackle the climate crisis, and these amendments will allow that added flexibility, hopefully. I can call on Members to support these two amendments. Diolch yn fawr.

The Deputy Minister, Hannah Blythyn.

Hannah Blythyn AC: Diolch. The Government is supporting these amendments. As Peredur has explained, table 1 describes the categories of well-being improvements sought within construction contracts and their supply chains. The improvements in the table are designed to build on good practice in the construction industry, and cause these to be applied more consistently. Over recent months, we have been discussing table 1 with construction industry representatives, and with public sector construction experts. The industry is facing recruitment challenges at the moment, and many people we have spoken to are keen to promote the industry as a great place to work, with opportunities for all.
This amendment will focus attention on extending employment opportunities to a wider range of groups of people who may be disadvantaged due to their protected characteristics. This amendment is entirely in line with the pursuit of the more equal Wales goal in the well-being of future generations Act. Table 1 reflects the construction industry now, and some of the challenges it faces in pursuing well-being outcomes. Over time, these may change, and amendments 6 and 12 allow for the table to be updated by regulations in future. I am happy with all of these proposals, and so, can confirm that the Government will be supporting amendments 5, 6 and 12. Diolch.

Peredur Owen Griffiths to respond.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: I thank the Deputy Minister.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: These amendments are a positive addition to this Bill, and I propose that we move straight to the vote.

The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, there is no objection to amendment 5, therefore amendment 5 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We'll move now to amendment 6, and if amendment 6 is not agreed to, amendment 12 will fall. Peredur Owen Griffiths, amendment 6.

Amendment 6 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Please.

It's moved. Is there any objection to amendment 6? No, there is no objection to amendment 6. So, the amendment is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 10: Annual socially responsible procurement reports (Amendments 7, 8, 9, 44, 46)

We move, therefore, to group 10, and the tenth group of amendments relates to annual socially responsible procurement reports. Before calling on Peredur Owen Griffiths to speak, I need to draw Members' attention to the fact that amendment 44 in the name of Joel James and amendment 46 in the name of Jane Dodds are identical; both were tabled on the same day. Whilst admissible at the point of tabling, it would not be admissible to consider and vote on an identical proposal twice. Therefore, I have deselected amendment 46, in line with my powers under Standing Order 26.34. Amendment 7 is the lead amendment in this group. Peredur Owen Griffiths to move amendment 7.

Amendment 7 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Diolch yn fawr. We consider the annual socially responsible procurement reports to be a key mechanism to ensure that the Bill is having the desired effect in improving public procurement, both at an individual public body level, and also at a strategic national level, as the information reported on in these reports is collated and analysed by the Welsh Ministers, as per their duty under section 42 to produce an annual report on procurement nationally.
As I said in Stage 2, the provisions included in this section of the Bill, as introduced, to set out what the public authority had done did not go far enough and the real proof would be in the pudding—measuring the impact of those actions through the outcomes being achieved on the ground. I welcomed the Minister’s recognition of this in her amendment at Stage 2, but also noted a danger of a two-tier system being created in this section, where some things 'must' be reported on, and others 'may' be reported on.
The amendment rectifies that position and will ensure that we have, for the first time, a consistent standard baseline of data on the impacts of public procurement on the well-being of Wales in the widest sense. Whilst the details will be set out in regulations, the information will have to be included in each body’s annual report. And at the least, we expect that to contain information that will enable public bodies to be held to account on how their procurement activities are benefiting the economy of the area, including through the award of contracts to small and medium-sized enterprises; taking environmental considerations into account; and taking other social considerations into account.
This will, for instance, enable the contribution of the body’s procurement activities and the value added to the local and Welsh economy to be measured, for accountability and also a baseline for future development. Hopefully, then, there can be no excuse or practical impediment to prevent setting targets in the future, once the first collection exercise has been done as a result of this duty. This will also enable greater alignment between the objectives of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and this piece of legislation, as well as ensuring that the impact of the Bill can be more effectively monitored.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: There was no reference to the Welsh language on the face of the Bill, as introduced. I spoke during the committee stage on this legislation about how important it is for the Welsh language to be embedded at the heart of the public procurement framework in Wales, as one of the key social and public policy objectives that we expect this area to contribute towards. It's already Government policy as a result of the co-operation agreement to increase the number of Welsh language spaces, including workplaces, to give one example of how this legislation could drive forward our aims and aspirations in terms of the Welsh language in practice through procurement.
We talked in Stage 2 about the construction sector and the excellent practices pursued by companies such as Jones Bros, Ruthin, and Alun Griffiths contractors, and the fact that the majority of the administration of the Caernarfon bypass has been undertaken in Welsh, and has provided valuable job opportunities through the medium of Welsh, and Griffiths has developed hard hats with 'Working Welsh/Iaith Gwaith' badges to facilitate the use of Welsh in the workplace. But this good practice needs to be aligned throughout our procurement activities. If this amendment is accepted, it will allow public bodies to be compelledto report on how exactly they ensure in practical terms that their procurement activities contribute to the promotion and facilitation of the use of the Welsh language. I would be grateful if the Minister can give an assurance on the record today that her officials will work closely with Efa Gruffydd Jones, the Welsh Language Commissioner, when drafting any regulations, statutory and non-statutory guidance, whether on this section specifically or in general, so that we have a framework that is fit for purpose. Thank you very much.

Joel James MS: I'm conscious that this is the last opportunity that I'll have to speak, and I would just like to put on record my thanks to the group office, the clerking team and my staff for all the help they've given me, not only through Stage 3 amendments, but the whole Bill process. They've been invaluable.
I'm conscious that we've not seen eye to eye on this Bill; I nonetheless want to pay tribute to the Deputy Minister and to thank her for at least making this a rather enjoyable experience for me.
So, I'd like to speak to my amendment 44, which will help ensure that procuring locally does not come at the expense of globally responsible procurement. This Bill sets out to encourage public bodies to procure goods and services as locally as possible in order to allow public procurement funds to be used to help local economies and local communities. However, encouraging this may have the unintended consequence of public bodies reducing the amount of fair-trade goods that they have purchased from the global south, and thus will no longer support these global communities that are trying to become self-sustainable. This amendment seeks to ensure that public bodies recognise and reduce the impact that they will have when purchasing locally instead of purchasing fair-trade products. Thank you.

Janet Finch-Saunders AC: Go on—let him have that one. [Laughter.]

It wasn't actually his amendment, Janet, but there we go. [Laughter.] Jenny Rathbone. No. That's fine.

The Deputy Minister to contribute. Hannah Blythyn.

Hannah Blythyn AC: Diolch. Further to comments I made in relation to group 8, I can confirm that the Government will support amendments 7 and 8. Members may recall that an amendment designed to strengthen this section was made in Stage 2 committee. If carried, amendments 7 and 8 today will further strengthen this provision by requiring the Welsh Government to make regulations under section 39. The amendments will also require that those regulations be explicit about the information contracting authorities must provide in order that Welsh Ministers can assess how a contracting authority’s procurement is contributing to the achievement of the well-being goals. So, we will be supporting these two amendments.
Turning to amendment 9, I can confirm that the Government accepts this amendment. We agree that contracting authorities should be able to demonstrate how procurement practices are safeguarding and promoting the use of the Welsh language, and we will support amendment 9 on that basis.
As we have repeatedly assured all stakeholders as this Bill has progressed, the statutory guidance will be developed in a truly collaborative manner, consulting with all who are interested in increasing the well-being outcomes from our more than £7 billion of procurement spend each year. So, I'm more than happy to commit to engaging closely with the Welsh Language Commissioner as part of that broad partnership work to ensure our commitment to the Welsh language is fulfilled.
However, we are unable to support, and can't support, amendment 44, because 'globally responsible' is already covered by sections 39(3)(a) and (b), which require a contracting authority to include information about how it is contributing to all of the well-being goals in its procurement reports. Diolch.

Peredur Owen Griffiths to reply.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: I'm grateful to the Government for supporting these amendments, which will only serve to strengthen the positive outcomes of this Bill and send a clear message out about its intention. I'm particularly happy that the Government has moved on the matter of the Welsh language. Its previous position was incongruous with its policy towards the language and its goal of creating conditions for millions of speakers by 2050—a million speakers; millions would be great, but a million to start with by 2050. [Laughter.] [Interruption.] Come on. This change of heart is merely in keeping with the efforts to protect and boost our precious language. I'm glad also, in the development of the statutory guidance, that the Minister is willing to and happy to work with the commissioner, and I'm sure the commissioner will be very happy to work with the Minister.
We will be supporting Joel James's amendment, and Jane's amendment, which are one and the same, as we do think that it is—and we've had debates in this place—around the global responsibility of procurement. So, we will be supporting that amendment. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 7. Open the vote. Close the vote. Infavour 40, 15 abstentions and one against. Therefore, amendment 7 is agreed. [Interruption.]

The record will show.

Amendment 7: For: 40, Against: 1, Abstain: 15
Amendment has been agreedClick to see vote results

Peredur Owen Griffiths, amendment 8. Is it moved?

Amendment 8 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Yes, please.

It is.Is there any objection to amendment 8? [Objection.]Yes, there is objection to amendment 8. We will therefore move to a vote on the amendment. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, no abstentions and 15 against. Therefore, amendment 8 is agreed.

Amendment 8: For: 41, Against: 15, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been agreedClick to see vote results

Amendment 9, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Amendment 9 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Please.

It's moved. Any objection to amendment 9? No objections to amendment 9. And therefore it is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 44.

Joel James, is it being moved?

Amendment 44 (Joel James) moved.

Joel James MS: Moved.

Yes. Is there any objection to amendment 44? [Objection.] There is. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 44. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, no abstentions, and 28 against, and therefore I will use my casting vote in the negative. So, the final result of that vote is 28 in favour, no abstentions, 29 against. So, amendment 44 is not agreed.

Amendment 44: For: 28, Against: 28, Abstain: 0
As there was an equality of votes, the Llywydd used her casting vote in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 46 not selected.

Group 11: Contracts register (Amendments 10, 11)

We move to group 11, which is our final group of amendments, and the amendments relate to contracts registers. The lead amendment is amendment 10, and I will call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to move this amendment.

Amendment 10 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: The purpose of amendments 10 and 11 is to amend section 40, which sets out the information contracting authorities must include in their contracts register. The effect of these amendments is, again, as I have already mentioned in relation to those tabled about section 27, is to futureproof section 40 by adding a similar regulation-making power that will enable Ministers to amend the list of requirements should the need arise. In addition to the data that's being collected as a result of the amendment agreed in the previous grouping on annual socially responsible procurement reports, we envisage that the contracts register, through its primary purpose being transparency, should be utilised to require additional data from suppliers. Say if it emerged to a future Minister in a future Government that specific data was required to further drive forward our wider ambitions to support the value added to the Welsh economy from procurement, then that case could be made to the Senedd. As with many of the amendments I've laid today, this is about ensuring this legislation is fit for purpose beyond the first couple of years of its life. I hope that this is a place where most of us are coming from today. Diolch yn fawr.

The Deputy Minister to contribute to the debate. Hannah Blythyn.

Hannah Blythyn AC: Diolch, Llywydd. As this is the final group of amendments, I'd like to take this opportunity to place on the record my thanks to Peredur Owen Griffiths and the team for the way in which we've been able and the spirit in which we've been able to work together and to seek solutions in partnership in developing this legislation. Whilst I'm also surprised that Joel James has found the experience enjoyable, I'm nonetheless pleased that he has.
The Government is happy to support an amendment that would allow for the procurement contracts register requirements to be altered in the future. So, I agree with Peredur’s suggestion that a regulation-making power of this type would be useful in terms of futureproofing the procurement contracts register requirements so that we can add to these in the future, should the need arise. On that basis, the Government will support amendments 10 and 11.

Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Diolch yn fawr. And to close my final contribution in this, the final debate of the Stage 3 proceedings, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank all those who have assisted with the scrutiny process: Senedd clerks, lawyers, and the Plaid team, and I'd also like to pay tribute to the way in which the Minister and her officials have approached the scrutiny process, and I hope she feels better soon. It's a pity she wasn't in the Chamber here, but I'm glad that she was able to take part in this debate.
We haven't agreed on everything, and neither should we, but this final legislation emerging out of Stage 3 will represent a genuine compromise that has been vastly improved as a result of this approach. It's fitting now that we have approached this legislation about social partnership in that way and that it's been conducted in that very spirit.
In terms of the content of the legislation, it is significant that this Senedd, in agreeing the amendments at Stage 3 today, has taken another decisive step in favour of the Welsh way of undoing Thatcherism and putting in place a procurement framework that is a catalyst for redistribution, driving down outsourcing to cheaper, private sector providers and providing a value-driven approach, purchasing from Welsh-based suppliers that pay good wages and respect and advance our values in how they conduct their activities, of working with our trade unions and our workers, and restricting their rights, not stripping them away—and respecting their rights, not stripping them away. Sorry; it's been a long session. [Laughter.]
This represents the two choices about Wales's future: developing Wales as a nation for our workers and our local businesses, or subjecting ourselves to the divide-and-rule tactics and fewer rights and protections under Westminster's watch, putting up barriers to striking, protesting, and even voting. This legislation is an endorsement of the former. I thank the Minister for confirming that the Government will be supporting our amendments.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Llywydd, can we proceed to the final votes this evening? Thank you.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. [Objection.] [Interruption.]

That was close.

We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 10, as there was an objection. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, 14 abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 10 is agreed.

Amendment 10: For: 41, Against: 1, Abstain: 14
Amendment has been agreedClick to see vote results

Amendment 11 is next. Is it moved, Peredur Owen Griffiths?

Amendment 11 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Yes.

It is. Is there any objection to amendment 11? No, there is no objection to amendment 11.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 12 is the final amendment. Peredur Owen Griffiths, is it moved?

Amendment 12 (Peredur Owen Griffiths) moved.

Peredur Owen Griffiths AS: Yes.

Is there any objection to amendment 12? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 12. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 40, 15 abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 12 is agreed.

Amendment 12: For: 40, Against: 1, Abstain: 15
Amendment has been agreedClick to see vote results

We have reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Bill, and I declare that all sections of and Schedules to the Bill are deemed agreed.

All sections of the Bill deemed agreed.

And if I can make the final comment to the Deputy Minister: I hope you recover from your illness. But also, can I just say what a wonderful wall that is as a background? [Laughter.]

That concludes our proceedings for today.

The meeting ended at 19:04.

QNR

Questions to the First Minister

Rhys ab Owen: What discussions has the Welsh Government had with other public authorities regarding poor housing conditions in Cardiff for students from Africa?

Mark Drakeford: The Welsh Government is determined that citizens from other countries who have chosen to live, study, visit, or work in Wales feel welcomed and valued members of our communities. If students are in poor condition private accommodation, they should report any repairs or maintenance issues to their landlord in the first instance.

Huw Irranca-Davies: What recent assessment has the First Minister made of the impacts of EU withdrawal on residents and businesses in Ogmore?

Mark Drakeford: The UK Government has created trade barriers for Welsh businesses which are making imports and exports more burdensome and contributing to price pressures being felt by consumers. The loss of EU funding is now resulting in job losses and the closure of vital skills and business support programmes across Wales.

Luke Fletcher: Will the First Minister provide an update on the Welsh Government's strategy relating to community wealth building?

Mark Drakeford: We are working with public bodies to embed Foundational Economy approaches in their activity to help retain wealth within our communities and improve their wellbeing. Actions taken will shorten supply chains to reduce carbon emissions; build a strong Welsh supply base; and improve employment conditions and pay for workers.

Peredur Owen Griffiths: How is the Government supporting teachers with the cost-of-living emergency in South Wales East?

Mark Drakeford: Teachers in South Wales East benefit from the initiatives introduced to support households through this cost-of-living crisis. In relation to teachers’ pay, an offer that is the equivalent of an 8% pay rise, with 6.5% consolidated, is a strong one in the context of a reducing Welsh Government budget.